^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^ 


Presented    by       SVlfi.    CAuA-V\nOY- 


Division >>!-). .  !w>  Cv  -O  (o    \ 


POPULAR  LECTURES 

ON 

THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


POPULAR  LECTURES 

ON 

THE  BOOKS 

OF  THE 

NEW  TESTAMENT 


OF  PRI« 
APR  ^n  IS 


AUGUSTUS  H.  STRONG,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Litt.  D. 

President  Emeritus  of  the  Rochester  Theological  Seminary 


THE  GRIFFITH  &  ROWLAND  PRESS 

PHILADELPHIA 

BOSTON       CHICAGO        ST.  LOUIS        TORONTO.  CAN. 


Copyright  1914  by 
A.  J.  ROWLAND,  Secretary 


Published  March,  1914 


PREFACE 


This  book,  with  the  exception  of  the  eighth  chapter, 
is  a  stenographic  report  of  lectures  deHvered  to  a 
large  Sunday-school  class,  which  at  times  numbered 
as  many  as  three  hundred.  This  fact  will  explain  the 
familiar  and  even  colloquial  style  of  address.  While 
the  problems  of  history  and  exegesis  were  discussed, 
the  lectures  were  intended  to  be  popular,  in  the  sense 
of  being  intelligible  to  all.  It  is  hoped  that  this  has 
not  prevented  them  from  being  fairly  representative 
of  the  results  of  modern  scholarship.  They  are  now 
printed  in  the  belief  that  they  may  be  useful  to  a  larger 
number  of  Christian  people  than  that  which  first  lis- 
tened to  them. 

A.  H.  S. 
Rochester,  January  9,  19 14. 


CONTENTS 


The  New  Testament  as  a  Whole 1-15 

"  New  Testament"  means  New  Covenant,  i.  Rela- 
tion between  old  covenant  and  new,  i,  2.  Old 
covenant  of  salvation  by  law,  2.  New  covenant 
of  salvation  by  grace,  2.  Under  the  old,  ordinances, 
prophecies,  judgments,  2.  Scattering  of  the  Jews, 
Greek  language,  3.  Incarnation,  and  death  of  Christ, 
3.  In  him  the  new  covenant  ratified,  4.  The  New 
Testament  the  final  revelation,  4.  It  is  the  title-deed 
to  our  inheritance,  5;  the  new  covenant  embodied, 

5.  New  Testament  a  collection  of  many  books,  5. 
Not  in  existence  for  twenty  years  after  Jesus'  death, 

6.  Epistles  preceded  Gospels,  6.  Slow  and  difficult 
transmission,  7.  Most  of  the  books  in  circulation  by 
A.  D.  70,  7.  Canon  not  complete  for  three  hundred 
years,  8.  Proofs  of  care  in  making  it  up,  8.  Apoc- 
ryphal literature  set  aside,  9.  The  collection  of  many 
books  came  to  be  a  single  book,  9.  The  New  Testa- 
ment is  a  unity,  9.  Condensation  and  sublimity  of  its 
writing,  10.  Its  unity  shows  divine  inspiration,  10. 
No  imperfections  inconsistent  with  truth,  11.  Yet 
the  organic  whole  is  articulate,  12.  Three  great 
divisions,  12.  History,  doctrine,  prophecy,  13.  Like 
the  Old  Testament,  14.  Contrast  with  the  Koran,  14. 
Beginning  and  end,  in  both  Old  Testament  and 
New,  15. 

The  Life  of  Christ 16-31 

The  life  of  Christ  the  substance  of  gospel,  16.  It 
is  the  life  of  an  infinite  Being  on  earth,  16.  Christ 
is  the  eternal  Word  of  God,  made  flesh,  16;  the  one 
and   only    Revealer    of    God,    17.     No   other   name 

vii 


Vlll  CONTENTS 

whereby  we  may  be  saved,  i8.  The  Infinite  can  be 
known  only  as  it  comes  under  limitation,  i8.  God 
comes  down  and  lives  a  finite  life,  that  we  may 
understand  him,  19.  More  worthy  than  the  Greek 
idea  of  divine  seclusion,  19.  Self-limitation  is  the 
highest  nobility  and  dignity,  20.  The  Word  made 
flesh  is  subject  to  the  laws  of  human  development,  21. 
Misconceptions  removed,  21.  At  twelve  years,  Jesus 
came  to  know  himself  as  Sent  of  God  and  Son  of 
God,  22.  Divinity  limited  by  humanity,  23.  Illus- 
tration from  Humboldt,  23.  Christ  took  form  of 
servant,  24.  Progress  in  teaching  of  Jesus,  but 
always  truth,  24.  Christ  subject  of  teaching,  more 
than  teacher,  25.  Embodied  reconciliation  between 
God  and  man,  25.  Three  years  of  Christ's  ministry 
described,  26.  First  year  an  appeal  to  Jewish  au- 
thorities, 26.  John  describes  his  rejection  by  the 
rulers,  2^.  Second  year  an  appeal  to  the  Jewish  peo- 
ple in  Galilee,  28.  They  also  reject  him,  28.  Third 
year  an  appeal  to  his  disciples,  29.  Prepares  them 
to  preach  gospel  after  his  death,  30. 

The  Gospels  and  their  Origin 32-47 

An  oral  account  preceded  our  present  Gospels,  Z'2- 
Apostles  primarily  teachers,  only  secondarily  writers, 
2i2.  Converts  needed  direct  instruction,  2)Z-  Memory 
was  strong,  ZZ-  Holy  Spirit  brought  truth  to  re- 
membrance, 2>Z'  Repeated  as  was  the  Old  Testament, 
34.  Salient  and  vital  things  were  gradually  selected, 
34.  Types  of  apostolic  doctrine  grew  up,  35.  One 
supplemented  another,  35.  Yet  the  essentials  were 
stereotyped,  35.  Substantial  agreement,  together  with 
individuality  and  independence,  36.  No  writing  at 
first,  36.  But  need  of  writing  soon  felt,  36.  A.  D.  50, 
a  possible  Hebrew  Gospel  by  Matthew,  2)1'  A.  D.  55, 
Mark's  Gospel  in  Greek,  zi-  A.  D.  58,  Matthew's 
Gospel  in  Hebrew,  zi-  A.  D.  59,  Luke's  Gospel,  38. 
All  three  synoptic  Gospels  before  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  38,  John  wrote  independently  long  after, 
39;  adding  chronological  data,  39.  Gospels  show 
diversity  in  unity,  39.     ^Matthew  shows  us  Christ  as 


CONTENTS  IX 

suffering  Messiah  and  King  of  Israel,  40;  he  ad- 
dresses Jews,  40;  Mark  shows  Christ  as  Wonder- 
worker, 41 ;  addresses  Romans,  41.  Luke  shows 
Christ  as  Friend  of  humanity,  41 ;  addresses  Greeks, 
41.  John  shows  us  Christ  in  his  divine  nature,  42; 
writes  for  all  men,  42.  Unity  in  diversity,  43.  Pic- 
tures from  different  points  of  view,  43.  Illustrated 
by  Canaletto  and  Turner,  44 ;  by  Plato  and  Xenophon, 
45.  Two  plus  two  equal  sixteen,  46.  Gospels  not 
mere  tradition,  46;  but  record  written  while  wit- 
nesses were  living,  46;  the  settled  convictions  and 
testimonies  of  those  who  knew  our  Lord,  47. 

The  Gospel  According  to  Matthew 48-66 

The  Gospel  of  sacrifice,  48.  Matthew's  original 
name  was  Levi,  48.  The  publican  was  a  tax-gatherer, 
48 ;  a  qualified  writer,  49 ;  a  humble  man,  49 ;  a  man 
of  means,  49.  First  wrote  in  Hebrew,  50;  and  after- 
ward our  Greek  translation,  51 ;  enlarging  as  he 
wrote,  51 ;  but  quoting  Greek  Old  Testament  instead 
of  Hebrew,  52.  Palestine  bilingual,  53;  people  spoke 
Aramaic,  but  read  Greek,  53 ;  the  literary  language 
Greek,  54.  Date  of  the  Greek  Gospel  about  A.  D.  58, 
54;  testimony  of  Irenaeus  to,  54;  before  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  55 ;  only  wrong  view  of  inspiration 
puts  the  date  after,  55.  But  Daniel  had  foretold  that 
destruction,  56.  The  date  of  the  Gospel  not  long 
before,  56.  Object  of  the  Gospel  to  prepare  Jewish 
Christians  for  trial,  57;  by  showing  them  that  Christ 
was  an  almighty  Saviour,  57;  King  of  Israel  and 
promised  Messiah,  58.  Historical  proof  begins  with 
genealogy,  58.  Christ  is  son  of  David  and  son  of 
Abraham,  58;  also  a  suffering  Messiah,  58.  Two 
classes  of  predictions  fulfilled  in  him,  59.  Matthew 
is  the  Gospel  of  rejection,  59,  Christ  is  forsaken  by 
Sanhedrin,  by  Jewish  people,  by  God  himself  upon 
the  cross,  60.  The  old  covenant  merged  in  the  new, 
61.  Structure  of  the  Gospel,  61 ;  first,  our  Lord's 
official  life  in  Galilee,  62;  secondly,  preparation  for 
the  crucifixion,  62.  Sermon,  miracles,  parables,  62; 
sermon,  miracles,  prophecies,  63.    Not  chronological, 


X  CONTENTS 

but  logical,  order,  63;  not  an  annalist,  like  Mark,  64. 
Unique  things  in  Matthew,  64.  Christ  the  Son  of 
God  and  King  of  Israel,  65;  his  sacrifice  the  central 
subject  of  Matthew,  66. 

The  Gospel  According  to  Mark 67-83 

John,  whose  surname  was  Mark,  67;  convert  of 
Peter  and  mentioned  in  Mark  14  :  51,  52?  68.  Cousin 
of  Barnabas?  68.  Went  with  Paul  and  Barnabas  to 
Antioch  and  Perga,  69;  left  Paul,  6g;  recovered 
Paul's  confidence,  69.  The  familiar  companion  of 
Peter  and  Paul,  70.  Interpreter  of  Peter,  70.  Evi- 
dences of  Peter's  sanction,  71.  Mark  inspired,  as 
standing  in  place  of  an  apostle,  ']2.  Gospel  written 
possibly  in  Babylon,  A.  D.  55  or  56,  ^Z-  Written  for 
Roman  readers,  'JZ ;  the  Gospel  of  miracles,  'jz ;  Christ 
the  Wonder-worker,  '/Z-  Method  of  an  annalist,  74; 
chronological  order,  74;  little  grouping,  74.  Many 
miracles,  but  few  parables,  75.  Gospel  of  activity,  76. 
Christ  the  Lion  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  76.  The  word 
"straightway,"  ^d.  Christ  majestic  and  awe-in- 
spiring, T].  The  briefest  of  the  Gospels,  78;  most 
picturesque,  78;  minute  detail,  78.  Unique  things  in 
Mark's  Gospel,  79.  Adaptation  to  Roman  readers, 
80.  Mark  explains  things  familiar  in  Palestine,  81. 
Witness  to  miracles,  82;  in  spite  of  Sadducean  un- 
belief, 82;  contrast  to  medieval  accounts,  82;  a 
credible  narrative,  ^Z- 

The  Gospel  According  to  Luke 84-97 

The  Gospel  of  Christ's  humanity,  84.  Luke  is 
Lucanus,  not  a  Jew,  born  at  Antioch,  84.  Gospel 
dedicated  to  Theophilus,  84,  a  man  of  note  and 
wealth,  85.  Luke  an  educated  physician,  85;  com- 
panion of  Paul  from  Troas,  85;  goes  with  Paul 
to  Philippi,  but  there  remains  for  seven  years,  86. 
The  "we  passages"  in  the  Acts,  87.  Date  of  the 
Gospel,  87.  Material  collected  at  Caesarea,  88; 
written  about  A.  D.  59,  89.  A  Pauline  Gospel,  in 
what  sense,  89.     Testimony  of  Irenseus  and  Tertul- 


CONTENTS  XI 

lian,  89.  "  The  beloved  physician,"  90.  Inferences 
from  Marcion,  91.  Luke  has  wider  horizon  than 
Matthew  or  Mark,  92.  Adapted  to  the  Greeks,  92. 
Application  to  universal  humanity,  92;  the  human 
side  of  Christ,  92.  Unique  things  in  Luke,  93. 
Christ's  discourses  show  his  humaneness,  94;  the 
sympathizing,  loving  Saviour,  95.  Christ's  prayers, 
95.  Luke  a  painter?  96.  Writes  classical  Greek, 
96;  yet  quotes  Hebraistic  documents,  96.  Faithful 
to  his  materials,  97;  a  painter  with  the  pen,  97; 
shows  us  Christ  as  Light  to  lighten  the  Gentiles,  97. 

The  Gospel  According  to  John 98-116 

John  and  James  sons  of  Zebedee,  98.  John  pos- 
sibly lived  and  studied  in  Jerusalem  before  his  dis- 
cipleship,  98;  known  to  the  high  priest,  and  took 
our  Lord's  mother  to  his  home,  98.  Special  intimacy 
with  our  Lord,  99.  In  company  with  Peter,  99; 
finally  goes  to  Ephesus,  99 ;  dies  only  at  close  of  the 
century,  100.  Exile  under  Nero,  and  writing  of 
Apocalypse,  100.  Man  of  intuitive  perception  and 
ardent  affection,  100;  fiery  indignation,  not  feminine 
weakness,  loi.  Depth  of  love  measured  by  hatred 
of  wrong,  102.  Insight  and  love  combined  qualify 
him  to  perceive  the  divine  side  of  Christ,  103;  and 
the  union  of  the  believer  with  his  Saviour,  103. 
John  the  author  of  the  Gospel,  103;  a  Jew,  103; 
whom  Jesus  loved,  104.  Testimony  of  church 
Fathers,  104.  Style  different  from  Apocalypse,  104; 
illustration  from  George  William  Curtis,  105.  Christ's 
discourses  melt  into  John's  comments,  106;  under 
guidance  of  Christ's  promised  Spirit,  106.  Writes 
long  after  the  Synoptists,  107;  treats  miracles  as 
symbols  and  texts  of  great  truths,  108.  Five  miracles 
wholly  new,  108.  John  writes  a  supplement  to  Luke 
and  the  two  former  Gospels,  109;  to  show  Christ's 
divinity,  no.  Plan  of  the  Gospel,  no.  Growth  of 
faith  and  of  unbelief,  following  divine  revelation,  no. 
Types  of  faith  and  of  unbelief,  in.  Culmination  of 
faith  in  Thomas,  ni.  Chapter  21  is  an  epilogue, 
n2.    Relation  of  Gospel  to  the  Synoptics,  and  to  the 


Xll  CONTENTS 

Apocalypse,  112;  to  John's  Epistles,  113.  Unique 
things  in  John's  Gospel,  ii3-  Deals  with  internal, 
not  external,  things,  114.  Style  corresponds  to  mat- 
ter, 115.  The  greatest  human  composition,  116; 
not  forged,  but  inspired,  116. 

John's  Gospel  the  Complement  of  Luke's  i  17-142 

An  orthodox  essay  in  higher  criticism,  117.  John 
composed  his  Gospel  with  Luke's  before  him,  117. 
Higher  aspects  of  Jesus'  life  are  settled  history,  118. 
John's  family  had  permanent  residence  in  Jerusalem, 
119.  His  acquaintance  with  high  priest  and  nota- 
bles, 119.  Like  Saul  of  Tarsus,  educated  at  Rabbinic 
schools?  120;  amid  Sadducean  surroundings,  120; 
with  possible  knowledge  of  Philo's  terminology,  121 ; 
seeks  John  the  Baptist  to  satisfy  his  soul,  122; 
finds  and  follows  Jesus,  122.  In  Christ's  inner  circle, 
123.  Luke  intimately  associated  with  Paul,  123. 
Paulinism  of  Luke's  Gospel,  124.  Luke  may  have  in- 
corporated portions  of  Mark  and  Matthew,  125. 
Paul  must  have  wished  Ephesians  to  possess  Luke's 
Gospel,  125 ;  to  make  up  for  his  own  departure,  126. 
John  goes  to  Ephesus  to  take  up  Paul's  work,  127; 
must  have  found  the  church  in  possession  of  Luke's 
Gospel,  128;  supplemented  that  Gospel  at  first  orally, 
128.  Oriental  methods  of  instruction,  129.  John 
added  what  Luke  lacked,  129;  vindicated  the  Syn- 
optics, 130;  taught  of  Jesus  as  the  Word  of  God, 
131;  the  Logos-doctrine,  132;  Paul  had  taught  it 
before,  for  substance,  133.  Luke's  omissions  sup- 
plied, 133-141.     Summary  of  conclusions,  142. 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles 143-159 

The  author  is  Luke,  143.  Reference  to  the  Gospel, 
143.  Similarities  of  style,  143;  in  speeches  of  Peter, 
Paul,  and  James,  144.  Date  of  composition,  A.  D.  61, 
145;  before  close  of  Paul's  imprisonment  at  Rome, 
146.  The  Acts  a  possible  result  of  that  imprison- 
ment, 147.  Paul  of  service  to  Christ,  as  a  prisoner, 
148.    Original  title  "The  Acts,"  148;  Acts  of  Christ, 


CONTENTS  Xiii 

more  than  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  149 ;  only  such  Acts 
of  Apostles  as  determined  history  of  church,  150. 
Two  foci,  or  critical  points,  prominent,  150;  plant- 
ing of  church  among  Jews,  and  among  Gentiles,  151 ; 
Christ's  work  in  us  follows  Christ's  work  for  us, 
151.  The  Acts  a  bridge  from  the  Gospels  to  the 
Epistles,  152.  Jesus  began  to  do  and  to  teach  in 
the  Gospels,  153;  he  continues  his  work  in  the  Acts, 
154;  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  154.  Acts  teaches  also  uni- 
versal character  of  Christianity,  155;  transition  from 
Jews  to  Gentiles,  156;  from  Jerusalem  to  Rome, 
157.  Work  for  Christ  since  his  ascension,  158;  the 
fulfilment  of  his  promise  to  Nathanael,   159. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Romans 160-180 

Paul  born  A.  D.  7  or  8,  160;  a  Roman  citizen, 
160;  high  social  position,  161;  yet  a  Jew,  161;  edu- 
cated at  Jerusalem,  161 ;  at  feet  of  Gamaliel,  162. 
Paul  ambitious,  blameless  in  conduct,  of  acute  mind, 
but  warm  affection,  162.  Greater  intellect  than  Peter 
or  John,  163.  His  dissatisfaction  with  self,  163; 
persecution  of  Christians,  164;  stoning  of  Stephen, 
164;  conversion  at  Damascus,  164.  Attempted  expla- 
nations by  Baur,  165;  by  Renan,  166.  Paul  qualified 
to  be  an  apostle  by  seeing  the  risen  Christ,  166.  Effect 
of  this  vision  upon  Paul,  167;  convinces  him  of  sin, 
167;  shows  Christ  as  the  only  sacrifice,  168;  a  sacrifice 
for  all  men,  168.  Called  to  be  an  apostle,  168;  wider 
and  wider  missionary  journeys,  168;  he  now  has  a 
doctrine  to  preach,  169;  which  he  puts  into  his 
letters,  170;  especially  to  Rome,  the  center  of  the 
world,  170.  Paul  not  founder  of  Roman  church, 
171 ;  nor  Peter,  171 ;  or  Paul  would  have  mentioned 
him,  171.  Roman  church  mainly  Gentile,  172.  Dif- 
ferences among  its  members,  172;  Paul  aims  to 
reconcile  them,  172.  Epistle  written  from  Corinth, 
A.  D.  56,  172;  its  main  object  to  set  forth  Paul's 
gospel,  173;  not  the  facts  of  Christ's  life,  but  the 
explanation  of  their  meaning,  173.  Paul's  summary 
of  Christian  doctrine,  174,  His  preparation  as  a 
lecturer,   174;  he  treats  faith  as  opposed  to  works, 


XIV  CONTENTS 

175;  not  simply  justification  by  faith,  but  salva- 
tion by  faith,  175.  Explains  rejection  of  Jews,  176; 
and  closes  with  exhortations  to  duty,  177.  Heathen- 
ism differs  from  Christianity,  178.  Paul  principal 
author  of  New  Testament,  179.  Coleridge's  estimate 
of  this  Epistle,  179;  contrasted  with  that  of  Julian, 
179,  180. 

The  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians 181-199 

Situation  of  Corinth,  181 ;  chosen  for  defense, 
181.  History  of  the  city,  182;  its  marvelous  growth, 
182;  its  temples  and  schools,  183;  its  immorality,  183. 
In  A.  D.  52  Paul  came  as  a  solitary  tent-maker, 
184;  found  Aquila  and  Priscilla,  184;  preached 
Christ,  185.  Antagonism  of  Jews,  185;  yet  many 
conversions,  186.  Paul  departs  after  year  and  half, 
186;  Apollos  comes,  186;  instructed  by  Aquila  and 
Priscilla,  186;  more  showy  than  Paul,  187.  Parties 
grew  up,  188.  Five  years  after,  church  asks  Paul's 
advice,  189;  as  to  practical  matters,  189.  Epistle  not 
mainly  doctrinal,  as  that  to  the  Romans,  189;  deals 
with  questions  of  practice,  190;  ten  important  ques- 
tions, 191;  party  spirit,  191;  immorality,  192;  law- 
suits, 192;  meats  offered  to  idols,  193;  marriage,  194; 
women  unveiled,  194;  modesty  and  subordination  of 
permanent  obligation,  195;  spiritual  gifts,  196;  the 
resurrection,  196.  In  Macedonia  Paul  learns  that 
the  church  in  Corinth  had  followed  his  advice,  197; 
his  anxiety  changed  to  joy,  197;  he  writes  his  Second 
Epistle,  197;  his  thanksgiving,  198;  collection  for 
the  poor  saints  in  Jerusalem,  198.  These  Epistles 
show  Paul's  firmness,  yet  his  courtesy,  198. 

The  Epistle  .to  the  Galatians 200-215 

With  Moffatt,  we  hold  to  the  North  Galatian 
theory,  200.  Galatians  and  Gauls  are  the  same,  200; 
their  history,  201;  French  characteristics,  202;  im- 
pulsive and  inconstant,  202;  given  to  externals  of 
religion,  203.  Church  founded,  in  51  or  52,  while 
Paul  was  detained  in  Galatia  by  illness,  204.     His 


CONTENTS  XV 

"thorn  in  the  flesh,"  204;  an  affection  of  the  eyes, 
204;  in  54,  writes  this  Epistle  from  Ephesus,  to 
warn  the  church  against  Judaizing  teachers,  205, 
206.  Galatians  rough  draft  of  Romans,  207;  its 
oneness  of  purpose,  207;  unlike  Corinthians,  208; 
its  uniform  severity,  208;  yet  fatherly  affection,  208; 
its  effect  unknown,  209.  The  course  of  thought, 
209;  not  by  law,  or  by  works,  but  by  faith  in  Christ, 
are  we  saved,  209.  Three  parts :  a  personal  narra- 
tive, 210;  a  doctrinal  portion,  211;  illustration,  212; 
a  hortatory  portion,  213.  Strife  in  early  church  per- 
mitted that  we  might  be  free?  213.  Luther's  affec- 
tion for  this  Epistle,  213.  Ritualism  revives  the 
evil  against  which  Paul  wrote,  214;  the  Romans  and 
the  French  specially  need  these  Epistles,  215. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians 216-231 

Location  of  Ephesus,  216;  a  great  city,  216;  its 
temple  of  Diana,  216;  its  schools  of  rhetoric  and 
philosophy,  217.  Paul's  first  visit  in  53,  his  second 
in  A.  D.  54,  217;  his  whole  stay  for  three  years,  217; 
great  success  of  his  preaching,  217.  Success  roused 
opposition,  218;  fight  with  beasts  metaphorical,  218; 
Paul  driven  from  the  city,  218;  his  love  for  the 
church,  218.  The  Epistle  written  from  Rome,  in  63, 
219.  Paul  writes  and  works  "in  a  chain,"  219; 
imprisonment  gives  time  for  meditation,  220;  pro- 
found exposition  of  Christian  truth,  220;  the  won- 
derful privileges  of  believers,  221.  The  Epistle 
liturgical  and  psalmodic,  a  solemn  hymn,  221 ;  lan- 
guage struggles  under  its  weight  of  meaning,  222. 
Address  lacks  the  words  "in  Ephesus,"  222;  a  cir- 
cular letter,  though  sent  first  to  the  Ephesians,  223 ; 
Tychicus  may  have  given  personal  messages,  224. 
Subject  is  "  Christ  Head  over  all  things  to  the 
church,"  225;  the  greatness  of  Christ,  225.  Three 
chapters  doctrinal,  and  three  practical,  225;  first, 
the  church  chosen,  redeemed,  and  endowed,  226; 
secondly,  the  offices,  gifts,  and  duties  of  believers, 
227;  finally,  the  conflict  between  good  and  evil, 
228;  and  the  Christian's  armor  to  meet  it,  228.    Love 


XVI  CONTENTS 

wins,  because  it  expresses  Christ  within,  229;  whose 
life  we  share,  230,  231. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Philippians 232-246 

Philippi  a  gateway  from  East  to  West,  232;  a 
Roman  colony,  233;  where  Latin  wjas  spoken,  233; 
and  Christianity  first  came  in  contact  with  Roman 
civilization,  233.  The  "  man  of  Macedonia "  sum- 
mons Paul,  234.  No  Jewish  synagogue,  234;  but  a 
place  of  prayer  frequented  by  women,  234.  Lydia 
converted,  235;  the  soothsaying  girl,  235;  Paul  and 
Silas  mobbed,  scourged,  and  imprisoned,  236;  earth- 
quake and  conversion  of  jailer,  236.  Paul  released, 
but  banished,  237.  Luke  left  in  Philippi,  237.  The 
church  firm  in  its  faith  and  love,  238;  contributed  to 
Paul's  support,  239.  Epistle  almost  wholly  com- 
mendatory, 239;  yet  warns  against  possible  faults, 
239.  Written  later  than  Ephesians,  Colossians,  and 
Philemon,  240;  its  date  about  A.  D.  63,  241;  ex- 
presses Paul's  gratitude,  242,  Only  two  offices  in 
the  church,  242.  Prayer  that  love  may  abound  in 
knowledge,  243.  Humility  urged  by  Christ's  hum- 
bling himself,  243.  Paul  loves  the  Philippians  in  the 
heart  of  Christ,  244;  Christ's  heart  has  become  his 
heart,  245 ;  union  with  Christ  is  the  secret  of  Chris- 
tian sympathy,  245;  for  Paul  "to  live  is  Christ, 
and  to  die  is  gain,"  246. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Colossians 247-261 

Colosse  the  smallest  church  Paul  addressed,  247. 
Jewish  influence  mixed  with  Oriental  theosophy, 
247.  Epaphras  its  evangelist,  248;  Paul's  fellow 
prisoner,  told  him  of  the  strange  teaching,  248. 
Onesimus  and  Tychicus  messengers,  249;  A.  D.  62 
or  63,  249.  Like  Laodicea,  Colosse  was  lukewarm, 
250;  from  pride  of  esoteric  wisdom,  250;  God  held 
separate  from  the  world,  251 ;  evil  physical  only, 
251 ;  intermediate  creations  between  man  and  God, 
252;  these  angelic  powers  could  be  worshiped,  253; 
evil  removed  by  mortifying  the  body,  253,  The 
remedy  is  Christ,  the  only  Mediator,  254;  the  Head 


CONTENTS  XVU 

of  the  universe,  254.  Christ's  wisdom  belongs  to 
all,  255 ;  nothing  is  exclusive  or  esoteric,  255.  Christ 
supersedes  angels  as  mediators,  256.  Asceticism  is 
needless,  because  Christ  is  the  only  Purifier,  257; 
therefore  beware  of  false  philosophy,  259;  the  rudi- 
ments of  the  world,  first  letters  of  alphabet,  259; 
only  Christianity  has  full  knowledge  of  the  truth, 
260;  and  is  the  guarantee  against  immorality  of 
life,  261.  Colossians  shows  Christ  as  Head  of  the 
universe,  261 ;  as  Ephesians  showed  him  to  be  Head 
of  the  church,  261. 

The  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians  ....  262-278 

Importance  of  Thessalonica,  262;  the  capital  of 
Macedonia,  262;  a  center  from  which  the  gospel 
might  spread,  263,  Paul  worked  here  at  his  trade, 
263;  but  received  contributions  froni  Philippi,  264. 
Four  weeks  of  preaching  in  synagogue,  265 ;  Jews 
stirred  up  against  him,  265;  charged  him  with 
treason  to  Caesar,  266 ;  drove  Paul  out,  266.  Persecu- 
tion fell  on  members  of  church,  266;  calls  forth 
his  first  letter  of  sympathy,  266;  and  second 
letter  of  gratitude,  267.  Greeks  needc^  advice 
to  repress  impulsiveness,  indolence,  sensuality,  267. 
Special  mistakes  as  to  second  coming  of  Christ, 
268;  Paul  does  not  teach  it  as  immediate,  269;  but 
is  so  misunderstood  by  some,  270 ;  the  Second  Epistle 
written  to  correct  this  misunderstanding,  270.  Both 
Epistles  dated  A.  D.  51,  270;  the  two  perfectly  agree, 
270;  the  second  adds  information  as  to  inter- 
vening events,  271.  We  distinguish  between  private 
surmises  and  public  teaching,  272;  Paul  came  later 
to  regard  Christ's  coming  as  more  distant,  273;  but 
he  had  never  taught  it  to  be  near,  274.  Prophecy 
is  unfolded  progressively  in  New  Testament  as  in 
Old,  274;  so  with  doctrine  and  polity,  275.  Progress 
in  teaching  determined  by  practical  needs,  276.  The 
"man  of  sin"  is  the  principle  of  false  religion,  277; 
not  simply  Roman  Catholicism,  277;  began  its  de- 
velopment thus  early,  277;  Thessalonians  shows  that 
Christ  will  come  to  put  it  down,  278. 


xviu  contents 

The  Epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus.  .  . .  279-292 

Called  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  because  written  to 
pastors  of  the  churches,  279;  date  64  or  65,  the  last 
of  Paul's  writing,  279.  Timothy  had  Jewish  mother, 
but  Greek  father,  280;  his  natural  gifts,  280.  Titus 
of  sterner  stuff,  281 ;  representative  of  the  Gentiles, 
281 ;  apostle  of  Dalmatia,  282.  Two  opposite  types 
of  character,  282.  Date  of  the  Epistles  64  and  65, 
283;  after  Paul's  first  imprisonment,  283;  and  he 
had  gone  to  Spain,  284;  and  to  Crete,  284.  From 
Philippi  writes  to  Timothy,  284;  from  Nicopolis  to 
Titus,  285.  At  Nicopolis  Paul  is  arrested,  taken 
to  Rome,  285;  writes  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy, 
285;  in  real  need,  asks  for  books  and  parchments, 
286.  Paul's  martyrdom  soon  follows,  286.  These 
Epistles  counteract  two  dangers:  (i)  False  doctrine 
of  Judaizing  and  Gnostic  teachers,  287;  Paul  meets 
this  by  recurring  to  first  principles,  287;  (2)  difficulty 
as  to  church  organization,  288;  Paul  meets  this  by 
teaching  of  church  offices  and  government,  288. 
Style  of  Pastoral  Epistles  differs  from  Paul's  earlier 
style,  288;  as  private  letters  differ  from  public,  289. 
Paul's  experiences  at  approach  of  death,  290;  his  care 
for  the  church  after  his  departure,  291.  Gravitates 
to  Rome,  and  from  there  writes  his  last  letter,  292. 

The  Epistle  to  Philemon 293-305 

Philemon  one  of  the  Colossian  Christians,  293; 
converted  by  Epaphras,  293 ;  church  met  at  his  house, 
293 ;  Paul's  "  partner,"  293 ;  Apphia,  the  wife,  Archip- 
pus,  the  son,  of  Philemon,  294.  Onesimus,  slave, 
thief,  and  runaway,  295;  made  his  way  to  Rome, 
295;  was  there  converted  by  Paul,  296;  became  use- 
ful to  Paul,  296.  But  Paul  sent  Onesimus  back  to 
his  master,  297;  with  this  letter,  297.  A  private 
letter,  like  2  and  3  John,  297;  with  gracious  intro- 
duction, 298;  appeals  to  Philemon,  not  with  authority, 
but  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  299;  to  forgive  Onesimus 
and  receive  him  back,  299.  In  Colossians,  Paul  com- 
mends Onesimus  to  the  whole  church,  300.    Paul  will 


CONTENTS  XIX 

pay  his  debt,  300.  Compare  letter  of  the  elder  Pliny, 
301;  Paul's  letter  has  no  air  of  command,  302; 
Christian  intercourse  on  the  basis  of  love,  302;  its 
spirit  undermines,  and  finally  does  away  with,  slavery, 
303;  model  of  Christian  effort  against  organized 
wrongs  of  society,  303;  Hebrew  and  Roman  slavery 
contrasted,  304;  both  now  abolished,  305. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 30^-320 

Many  enigmas,  306;  purest  Greek,  306;  stormy  his- 
tory, 306;  not  an  Epistle  of  Paul,  307;  doctrinal 
reasons,  307;  rhetorical  reasons,  308;  style  not 
broken,  but  flowing,  309;  Paul  is  dialectic,  309;  this 
Epistle  is  rhetorical,  310;  best  ascribed  to  Apollos, 
310;  a  Jew,  an  Alexandrian,  and  mighty  in  the 
Scriptures,  311.  Epistle  addressed  to  Hebrews  in 
Jerusalem  and  vicinity,  312;  in  persecution  and 
tempted  to  apostatize,  313;  excluded  from  temple, 
314;  A.  D.  67,  before  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  314. 
Christ  the  final  sacrifice  made  Old  Testament  sacri- 
fices no  longer  needed,  315.  Christ  greater  than 
angels,  316;  greater  than  Moses,  316;  greater  than 
Aaron,  316;  typified  by  Melchisedec,  316;  since 
Christ  abides,  Old  Testament  priests  may  go,  317. 
Practical  follows  doctrinal  part,  317.  The  divine 
Priest  is  also  human,  318;  he  is  our  brother,  318;  the 
one  and  final  revelation  of  God  to  man,  319;  apostasy 
from  him  is  apostasy  from  God  and  from  salvation, 
319.    Warnings  ensure  perseverance,  320. 

The  Epistle  of  James 321-336 

James,  our  Lord's  brother,  321 ;  president  of  the 
church  at  Jerusalem,  322;  converted  after  Christ's 
resurrection,  322;  distinguished  from  the  aposJes, 
323;  Christ's  appearance  to  his  brother  converted 
him,  324.  James  calls  himself  a  servant,  324.  Mary 
had  other  children  than  Jesus,  325 ;  Christianity  gives 
honor  to  marriage,  325-  An  apostle  would  not  be 
president  of  a  local  body,  326.  Jesus  gave  his  mother 
to  John,  326;  faith  being  better  than  blood,  326. 
James  austere  and  righteous,  12-];   surnamed  "The 


XX  CONTENTS 

Just,"  327;  his  decisions  accepted,  328;  he  never  left 
the  Old  Testament  church,  328;  could  best  influence 
Jewish  Christians,  329;  martyred  just  before  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem,  330.  His  Epistle  the  earliest 
document  of  the  New  Testament,  330;  A.  D.  47,  331; 
would  correct  wrong  practices  and  tendencies  among 
Jewish  Christians,  331;  not  doctrinal,  332;  "be  not 
hearers  only,  but  doers,"  333.  Luther's  objection 
short-sighted,  333.  James  teaches  nature  of  true  faith, 
334;  not  inconsistent  with  Paul,  335 ;  faith  alone  justi- 
fies, but  faith  is  never  alone,  335;  it  brings  good 
works  in  its  train,  336. 

The  Epistles  of  Peter 337-353 

Peter's  original  name  Simon,  337;  fisherman  of 
Bethsaida,  337;  brought  to  Christ  by  his  brother 
Andrew,  337.  Innermost  circle  of  apostles,  338. 
Ardent  affection  and  openness  of  heart,  338.;  but  rash 
and  overconfident,  338.  First  preacher  to  the  Jews, 
and  also  to  the  Gentiles,  339.  Church  built  on  the 
rock  Peter,  340;  not  as  a  person  alone,  but  as  a 
confessor  of  Christ,  340;  person  and  confession  both 
needed,  340;  personality  plus  truth,  341.  Peter  tem- 
porarily unfaithful,  341.  Transition  from  Peter  to 
Paul,  341.  Epistles  written  from  Babylon,  342;  not 
a  name  for  Rome,  342;  no  evidence  that  Peter  was 
at  Rome,  342;  Paul  would  have  mentioned  him  if  he 
had  been  founder,  342.  Epistles  written  to  churches 
founded  by  Paul,  343;  after  Paul's  death,  344;  in 
A.  D.  66,  345.  The  churches  already  have  doctrine, 
345;  Peter  counteracts  wrong  practical  tendencies, 
345.  He  sanctions  Paul's  writings,  346;  recognizes 
them  as  of  equal  authority  with  the  Old  Testament, 
346;  is  influenced  by  Paul,  347;  Paul  and  Peter  con- 
nected, 347.  Second  Epistle  counteracts  false  teach- 
ers within  the  church,  348;  as  the  First  had  helped 
against  persecution  from  without,  348.  Genuine- 
ness of  2  Peter  doubted,  348;  only  A.  D.  250  have 
we  clear  witness  to  it,  349 ;  the  work  of  an  old  man, 
350;  in  time  of  persecution,  350;  long  hidden,  351; 
curious   analogies   of    Luther's,    Milton's,   Aristotle's 


CONTENTS  XXI 

writings,  351.  Internal  evidence  of  its  genuineness, 
352.  Peter  the  apostle  of  hope,  352;  but  hope  based 
on  historical  facts,  353;  so  he  can  strengthen  his 
brethren,  353. 

The  Epistles  of  John 354-368 

First  Epistle  has  no  address,  354;  anonymous,  354; 
John  never  mentions  his  own  name,  354;  Gospel 
written  before  the  Epistle,  355;  A.  D.  96  or  97, 
355.  Gospel  represents  Christ  as  incarnate  in  human- 
ity, 356;  Epistle  represents  humanity  as  united  to 
God  in  Christ,  356;  is  the  application  of  the  Gospel 
sermon,  357.  Jerusalem  has  been  destroyed,  and 
heathen  are  not  mentioned,  357.  Church  difficulties 
are  all  internal,  358.  John  protests  against  the  degrada- 
tion of  Christ,  358;  against  the  doctrine  of  Cerin- 
thus,  358;  maintains  indissoluble  union  in  Christ  of 
deity  and  humanity,  360;  John  not  effeminate,  but  a 
Boanerges,  a  hater  of  evil,  361.  Beginnings  of  Gos- 
pel and  Epistle  are  alike,  361.  Two  great  divisions 
of  Epistle,  362;  first,  God  is  light,  walk  in  the  light, 
362;  secondly,  God  is  love,  walk  in  love,  363.  Since 
God  is  light,  fellowship  with  him  involves  putting 
away  of  sin,  364;  since  God  is  love,  fellowship  with 
him  involves  love  for  the  brethren,  364.  Purity  of 
life  and  love  to  the  brethren  enjoined,  365;  need 
of  increasing  sanctification,  365 ;  as  Jesus  says :  "  So 
shall  ye  become  my  disciples,"  366.  John  aims  that 
the  joy  of  Christians  may  be  fulfilled,  366;  and  that 
they  may  know  that  they  have  eternal  life,  366. 
John's  legacy,  367;  last  New  Testament  document, 
367;  2  and  3  Epistles,  368. 

The  Epistle  of  Jude 369-381 

Jude  the  brother  of  James,  369;  no  independent 
standing  as  an  apostle,  369;  one  of  Jesus'  half- 
brothers,  370;  converted  after  the  resurrection, 
370.  Tradition  that  he  preached  to  Jews  in 
Palestine  and  Egypt,  371 ;  written  before  Peter's 
death,  371 ;  A.  D.  64-66,  2,72.  Resemblance  between 
Jude    and    2    Peter,    2>7^-     Jude    the    original,    :iy2', 


XXll  CONTENTS 

Peter  adopts  thought  and  some  of  the  expressions, 
Z7Z',  Jude  the  briefer  and  more  condensed,  Z7Z\  the 
inspiring  Spirit  made  the  two  consult  and  cooperate, 
374;  as  Micah  and  Isaiah,  374-  Design  of  Epistle, 
first,  to  oppose  antinomian  Gnosticism,  374;  urges 
contending  for  faith  once  for  all  delivered  to 
saints,  375;  this  faith  an  easily  recognized  doctrine 
of  Christ,  375.  No  esoteric  doctrine  the  possession 
of  the  few,  375.  Design,  secondly,  to  denounce 
punishment  upon  those  who  resist  the  truth,  375. 
Three  sins  reproved:  unbelief,  pride,  sensuality,  376; 
three  punishments,  376.  The  remedy,  the  word  of 
God,  love,  and  bringing  back  the  wanderers,  376. 
Watchcare  and  discipline,  Z77'y  exhortation  and 
doxology,  377.  Quotation  from  book  of  Enoch,  Z77 ) 
sanction  of  Apocryphal  writing?  378.  Was  book  of 
Enoch  in  existence?  378.  Jude  may  have  gotten 
his  quotation  from  tradition,  379;  he  takes  nothing 
that  is  false,  380.  Tone  of  invective  like  Jesus'  de- 
nunciation of  Pharisees,  380.  Yet  sublime  utterance 
of  praise  called  forth  by  the  judgments  of  God, 
381.     God  judges  and  punishes  iniquity,  381. 

The  Book  of  Revelation 382-398 

Here  we  pass  from  beginning  to  end,  382.  John 
the  author  of  the  book,  382;  written  in  Patmos,  be- 
fore destruction  of  Jerusalem,  383;  its  date  about 
A.  D.  68,  383.  John  had  removed  to  Ephesus  after 
Mary's  death,  383.  The  persecution  under  Nero, 
384.  Early  date  accounts  for  differences  in  style  of 
Apocalypse  and  Gospel,  384;  peculiarities  of  Greek 
construction,  384 ;  the  writer  still  young,  a  "  Son  of 
Thunder,"  385.  John  became  the  apostle  of  love,  386. 
In  Revelation,  Jews  are  still  a  hostile  power,  386; 
the  two  witnesses,  387;  the  number  666,  387;  the 
five  kings  and  the  sixth,  387 ;  evil  tendencies  had  de- 
veloped rapidly,  388;  Paul  had  warned  the  Ephesians 
already,  388.  The  Jewish  nation  had  reached  a 
climax  of  corruption,  388;  the  Roman  Empire  equally 
corrupt,  389;  Nero  was  on  the  throne,  389.  Chris- 
tians needed  strengthening,  390.     Interpretations  of 


CONTENTS  XXlll 

the  book  diverse,  390;  the  Praeterists,  390;  the  Futur- 
ists, 390;  the  Continuists,  391.  The  key  is  in  our 
Lord's  Apocalyptic  discourse,  392;  the  book  of 
Revelation  a  commentary  upon  it,  392.  All  three  in- 
terpretations have  element  of  truth,  393.  The  book 
is  an  exhibition  of  principles,  393 ;  the  book  in  detail, 
394;  the  book  of  God's  decrees,  394;  only  the  Lamb 
can  understand  or  execute  them,  394.  Seals,  trum- 
pets, bowls,  all  represent  same  events,  395.  First 
resurrection  spiritual,  395;  Christ's  visible  coming 
postmillennial,  396;  not  separated  from  resurrection 
and  general  judgment,  396.  Salvation  not  solely  in- 
dividual, 397;  a  glorious  company,  397;  redeemed 
by  the  Lamb,  398;  who  makes  visible  the  Godhead 
to  man,  398. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  AS  A  WHOLE 

We  are  to  study  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  It 
is  the  New  Testament  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour,  Jesus 
Christ.  It  is  well,  at  the  very  beginning,  to  know  what 
that  phrase,  the  "  New  Testament,"  means.  The 
words  are  taken  from  the  institution  of  the  Supper. 
It  is  there  that  we  first  find  them.  Our  old  version 
reads :  "  This  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Testament,  which 
was  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins."  If  you 
look  into  the  Revised  Version,  you  will  see  that  the 
translation  is  changed ;  and  now  we  have :  ''  This  is 
my  blood  of  the  new  covenant^  which  was  shed  for 
many  for  the  remission  of  sins."  The  word  "  testa- 
ment"  means  "covenant."  It  often  is  so  translated; 
and  we  now  have  to  study  together  the  New  Covenant 
between  God  and  sinful  man. 

Of  course  this  suggests  at  once  the  relation  between 
the  new  covenant  and  the  old  covenant.  A  covenant 
is  an  agreement,  an  agreement  between  God  and  man. 
Provisionally  there  was  an  agreement  that  men  should 
be  saved  if  they  could  only  present  to  God  perfect 
works  of  obedience.  This  was  a  trial  or  test ;  intended 
to  show  the  real  condition  of  man.  God  never  expected 
any  human  being  under  the  old  covenant  to  present 
such  works  of  perfect  obedience;  he  only  intended  to 
demonstrate  the  fact  that  human  nature  was  helpless, 
and  that  it  could  not  be  saved  in  this  way.  There- 
fore, for  many,  many  generations  there  was  going  on 
A  I 


2  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

a  process  of  testing,  with  a  view  to  showing  that  man 
could  never  save  himself. 

The  Scriptures  of  the  old  covenant  represent  that 
history  of  probation ;  and  we  see  how,  in  many  ways,  it 
constituted  a  preparation  for  the  only  covenant  be- 
tween God  and  man,  by  which  we  can  hope  for  salva- 
tion :  namely,  the  covenant  of  grace,  the  covenant  of 
mercy  in  Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  we  are  saved, 
not  by  works  of  righteousness,  but  by  simple  faith. 
In  this  covenant  of  grace  salvation  is  not  by  character, 
but  by  the  blood  of  Jesus. 

This  long  preparation,  under  the  old  covenant,  was 
conducted  by  the  law;  there  were  ordinances  of  God; 
the  God  of  gods  uttered  his  commands.  But  there 
was  also  prophecy,  in  which  was  set  forth  the  coming 
of  a  Deliverer,  through  whom  men  were  to  be  saved. 
Men  even  then  were  not  saved  by  their  works,  but 
they  were  saved  by  faith  in  God,  so  far  as  he  was  re- 
vealed to  them — practically  in  the  same  way  in  which 
we  are  saved  by  believing  in  God  and  his  method  of 
salvation — although  they  did  not  know  it  was  a  sal- 
vation through  Jesus  Christ. 

Under  the  old  covenant  there  were  also  judgments. 
You  know  in  how  many  ways  those  were  experienced : 
Through  the  destruction  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah ;  by 
the  destruction  of  Achan  and  his  family;  and  then, 
finally,  by  the  exiling  of  the  chosen  people  from  their 
native  land  and  the  scattering  of  them  among  the 
heathen.  That  intimates  to  us  one  way  in  which  God 
made  this  preparatory  work  lead  to  Christ. 

The  Jews,  on  account  of  their  sins,  were  scattered 
abroad;  and  wherever  they  went  they  erected  syna- 


THE    NEW    TESTAMENT    AS    A    WHOLE  3 

gogues  and  places  of  worship;  and  these  were  after- 
ward centers  for  the  preaching  of  the  gospel.  The 
Jews  learned  the  Greek  language,  which  was  the  lan- 
guage of  the  world;  just  as  the  French  language,  not 
many  years  ago,  was  the  diplomatic  language  of 
Europe.  They  came  under  the  influence  of  the  Roman 
law.  Alexander  had  unified  the  Greek  East.  Caesar 
had  unified  the  Latin  West,  and  had  brought  the  world 
under  one  government;  so  that  converts  from  among 
the  Jews  were  now  able  to  publish  the  new  doctrine  of 
Christ.  All  roads  led  to  Rome,  the  capital;  and  there 
was  peace  prevailing  throughout  the  world.  The  Jews 
had  developed  a  spirit  of  proselytism,  which  was  laid 
hold  of  by  Christians,  so  that,  when  the  Jews  became 
Christians,  they  began  to  proselytize  just  as  they  had 
proselytized  when  they  were  Jews.  All  these  things 
were  preparations  for  the  coming  of  Christ,  prepara- 
tions for  the  new  covenant.  When  the  fulness  of  time 
had  come,  Jesus  himself  appeared.  There  had  been 
four  hundred  years  of  silence  in  which  God  had  not 
spoken.  But  now  once  more  the  voice  of  inspiration 
began  to  be  heard ;  and  the  messenger  of  the  new  cove- 
nant, Jesus  Christ,  appeared :  he  who  seals  the  true 
covenant  between  God  and  man,  he  who  reconciles  God 
to  man  and  man  to  God. 

The  Jews  sacrificed  the  Son  of  God,  the  only  true 
propitiation  for  the  sins  of  man,  the  only  real  repara- 
tion for  the  evil-doing  of  mankind ;  not  only  a  propitia- 
tion, but  an  atonement,  an  embodied  union  between 
God  and  man.  In  Jesus  Christ  we  have  humanity  and 
Deity  united :  in  fact,  the  beginning  of  the  Church  is 
Christ  himself.     Humanity  is  united  to  God  in  him. 


4  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

and  we  become  united  to  God  only  as  we  become  one 
with  Christ.  We  are  sons  of  God  only  as  we  are 
partakers  in  the  sacrifice  of  Jesus.  In  Christ  the  cove- 
nant was  ratified,  the  real  covenant  between  God  and 
man;  the  covenant  which  declared  and  established 
absolute  unity  between  Deity  and  the  sinful  world. 
This  was  the  final  covenant,  of  which  all  prior  cove- 
nants were  symbols  and  preparations. 

Have  you  ever  noticed  that,  in  the  Old  Testament, 
everything  points  forward  ?  There  are  no  indications 
of  completeness  anywhere.  On  the  other  hand,  the  in- 
dications are  that  the  system  was  not  a  complete  one, 
that  it  looked  for  something  to  come,  to  add  perfec- 
tion to  it;  but,  in  the  New  Testament,  on  the  other 
hand,  you  find  the  most  strenuous  prohibitions  against 
the  adding  or  taking  away  of  a  single  jot  or  tittle 
from  this  revelation.  The  New  Testament  is  the  final 
revelation.  It  is  the  true  covenant,  the  covenant  for 
which  all  the  Old  Testament  prepared  the.  way,  the 
complete  and  perfect  union  between  God  and  man  in 
the  person  of  Jesus  Christ. 

You  know  how  the  word  "  deed  "  has  come  to  be 
applied  to  a  document.  That  word  deed  meant  origi- 
nally an  act,  and  a  deed  of  property  is  the  act  of 
giving;  but  the  act  of  giving  is  not  a  document.  The 
deed  is  really  made  before  the  document  is  signed,  and 
the  document  only  expresses  the  act  and  puts  it  in 
form. 

Just  so,  what  we  call  the  New  Testament  or  the 
New  Covenant  is  simply  the  outward  formal  record 
of  a  deed,  a  covenant,  between  God  and  man,  which 
was  instituted  before  a  single  word  was  put  in  writing. 


THE    NEW    TESTAMENT    AS    A    WHOLE  5 

We  look,  therefore,  upon  this  New  Testament  as  the 
title-deed  to  our  inheritance.  Here  we  have  a  precious 
document,  in  which  is  embodied  a  covenant  between 
God  and  man,  in  which  is  inscribed  and  set  forth  an 
assurance  to  us  of  an  eternal  inheritance.  *'  Search 
the  Scriptures,  therefore,  for  in  them  ye  have  eternal 
life."  What  an  argument  it  is  for  the  study  of  the 
New  Testament,  that  we  should  search  these  title- 
deeds,  to  see  how  much  God  has  given  to  us  in  Jesus 
Christ,  his  Son!  The  New  Testament  is  the  record 
of  the  new  covenant,  the  agreement,  the  reconciliation 
between  God  and  man,  the  union  of  Deity  with 
humanity. 

But  we  mistake  greatly  if  we  suppose  that  this  book, 
at  the  beginning,  was  complete ;  that,  at  the  time  of  the 
first  apostles,  it  was  ready-made.  The  second  thing 
that  I  wish  to  bring  to  your  attention  to-day,  after  this 
first  thought  that  we  have  here  the  new  covenant  em- 
bodied, put  into  form,  is  that  this  New  Testament  was 
a  collection  of  many  books;  that,  at  the  first,  it  was 
not  one  complete  thing.  The  word  itself  is  very  sig- 
nificant, the  word  ''  Bible."  The  word  bible  was 
originally  plural — the  singular  hihlion,  the  plural  was 
biblia.  The  word  biblia  was  originally  used  of  this 
production  which  we  now  call  the  Old  Testament  and 
the  New  Testament.  In  other  words,  the  thought  of 
the  plurality  of  the  production  was  the  prominent 
thought;  an(J  it  was  only  afterward,  as  I  shall  show 
you,  that  that  plural  word  came  to  be  a  singular  word, 
came  to  be  "  The  Bible,"  came  to  be  biblion,  a  singular 
noun,  whereas  at  first  it  was  biblia.  The  transition 
from  the  plural  to  the  singular  is  very  significant  of 


O  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

the  change  in  the  estimation  which  Christian  people 
put  upon  what  we  now  call  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament.  We  have  here  a  divine  unity;  but  it  is  to 
the  thought  of  it  as  a  collection  that  I  want,  at  this 
time,  to  call  your  attention. 

The  apostles  and  apostolic  men  felt,  at  first,  that  they 
were  only  required  to  communicate  orally  the  substance 
of  the  teachings  of  Christ.  I  suppose  that  for  twenty 
whole  years  after  the  Saviour's  death  there  was  not 
in  existence  a  single  one  of  these  books  which  we  call 
the  New  Testament.  All  the  preaching  of  the  time 
was  oral;  but  it  is  very  evident  that,  after  one  and 
another  of  the  early  witnesses  began  to  die,  and  Chris- 
tians realized  that  merely  oral  production  is  in  danger 
of  becoming  corrupt,  they  began  to  think  of  the  neces- 
sity of  putting  into  permanent  form  this  gospel  of 
which  they  had  been  testifying.  The  result  was  that 
one  after  another  of  these  New  Testament  books  came 
into  existence.  The  order  in  which  the  books  occur 
in  our  present  New  Testament  was  not  the  order  in 
which  they  were  written.  The  truth  is  that  not  one  of 
the  Gospels  was  written  until  most  of  the  Epistles  had 
come  into  being.  The  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians 
were  probably  the  first  written,  and  then  other  Epistles 
followed.  The  majority  of  the  Epistles  were  in  exist- 
ence before  any  of  the  Gospels  were  written;  but  it 
was  the  exigencies  of  the  times  that  determined  what 
the  apostles  should  write.  There  were  errors  spring- 
ing up,  there  were  particular  errors  of  unbelief  and 
there  were  particular  forms  of  wrong  conduct  to  which 
Christians  were  exposed;  and  therefore  it  was,  that 
the  apostles  wrote  simple  letters  to  the  churches,  warn- 


THE    NEW    TESTAMENT    AS    A    WHOLE  J 

ing  them  of  these  errors  and  instructing  them  on  these 
points  of  which  they  were  ignorant.  So,  Httle  by  httle, 
there  grew  up  a  doctrine,  a  written  teaching. 

These  letters  were  first  written  to  separate  churches, 
and  the  difficuhies  of  transmission  were  many.  There 
was  no  such  thing  as  a  printing-press.  All  these  books 
had  to  be  transcribed  in  manuscript,  and  that  was  a 
long,  tedious  matter.  The  letter  that  was  written  to 
one  church  had  to  be  transcribed,  and  then  communi- 
cated to  another;  there  were  no  mails  in  those  days, 
and  no  such  thing  as  the  penny  post.  There  were  also 
difficulties  in  the  transmission  of  the  doctrine,  owing 
to  persecution.  There  was  nothing  like  the  settled 
government  that  we  have  to-day.  The  result  is  that 
some  of  these  books  took  a  long  time  to  get  into  cir- 
culation. 

The  Epistles  of  Peter,  written,  I  suppose,  in  Babylon 
— far  away  at  the  East — written  in  a  time  of  persecu- 
tion, and  perhaps  hid  away  on  account  of  persecution, 
did  not  come  into  general  circulation  until  the  middle 
of  the  fourth  century.  This  is  an  isolated  and  very  rare 
instance.  In  almost  all  other  cases  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament  got  into  general  circulation  before  the 
year  170,  and  perhaps  even  before  the  middle  of  the 
second  century. 

There  are  two  catalogues  of  the  New  Testament 
books,  both  dating  from  about  the  year  170,  which 
materially  supplement  each  other,  and  together  give 
us  all  of  the  New  Testament  except  Second  Peter  and 
the  First  and  Second  Epistles  of  John — as  we  might 
say,  insignificant  parts  of  the  New  Testament. 

It  is  only  in  the  year  363,  at  the  Council  of  Laodicea, 


8  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

that  you  have  all  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
embraced  in  a  catalogue,  and  not  all  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment even  then,  for  the  Apocalypse  was  not  among 
them.  It  was  only  in  the  year  397,  at  the  Third  Coun- 
cil of  Carthage,  that  a  list  of  the  New  Testament  books 
was  put  together  which  embraced  exactly  those  books 
which  we  now  have  in  our  New  Testament ;  so,  you  see, 
that  it  was  three  hundred  years  after  the  death  of  the 
last  apostle,  John,  before  our  present  New  Testament 
was  actually  constructed  as  we  have  it  to-day.  It  took 
three  hundred  years,  in  other  words,  to  make  this 
collection. 

It  is  very  important,  for  a  good  many  reasons,  that 
we  should  recognize  the  fact  of  this  gradual  growth. 
There  was  divine  providence  in  it,  as  we  shall  see. 
It  was  not  left  wholly  to  the  ingenuity  and  skill  of 
man,  though  men  did  exercise  their  ingenuity  and  skill 
in  deciding  as  to  the  claims  of  the  several  books  that 
came  to  their  notice. 

The  early  Church  has  sometimes  been  represented  as 
credulously  accepting  whatever  came  to  it  with  pre- 
tense of  apostolic  origin.  How  far  from  true  this  is 
we  can  see  by  remembering  Paul's  injunction  to  the 
Thessalonians,  to  use  caution  in  putting  their  faith  in 
communications  professing  to  come  from  him.  Melito, 
bishop  of  Sardis,  made  a  journey  into  Palestine  for 
the  express  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  grounds  upon 
which  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  were  received; 
and  as  a  result  of  his  investigation  he  excluded  the 
Apocrypha. 

Tertullian  tells  us  of  the  deposition  from  office  of  a 
presbyter  in  Asia  Minor  for  the  crime  of  forging  a 


THE    NEW    TESTAMENT    AS    A    WHOLE  9 

letter,  which  purported  to  be  a  letter  of  the  apostle 
Paul;  so  you  will  see  that  there  was  skill  used  in  the 
selection  of  the  right  writings,  and  that  we  have,  in 
the  books  which  now  bear  the  name  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, the  result  of  careful  scrutiny  and  criticism  on 
the  part  of  the  best  Christian  people.  In  fact,  I  think 
you  will  have  brought  before  your  mind  the  great  work 
which  was  performed  by  Christian  people  in  that  early 
century,  in  that  they  rejected  a  great  deal  more  than 
they  received.  The  whole  of  the  Apocryphal  literature 
— as  great  in  bulk  as  the  New  Testament — was  set 
aside  as  unworthy  of  a  place  in  the  sacred  canon.  The 
true  word  of  God  is  manifest  from  this  fact,  that  all  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament,  as  we  have  them  now, 
sound  one  peculiar  note.  There  is  a  peculiar  air  about 
them;  they  have  characteristics  which  are  totally  for- 
eign to  this  Apocryphal  literature  of  which  I  have 
spoken.  There  was  an  inner  Christian  sense,  under  the 
guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  led  to  the  rejection 
of  the  evil,  and  brought  into  the  New  Testament  only 
that  which  was  of  divine  origin. 

So  I  pass  to  that  which  is  the  third  thought  of  my 
remarks  this  morning,  that,  although  this  is  a  collec- 
tion of  books  and  originally  was  entitled  "  The  Books 
of  the  New  Covenant,"  it  came,  at  the  last,  before  the 
fourth  century  was  concluded,  to  be  "  The  Book." 
There  came  to  be  recognized  in  it  an  organic  unity. 
In  other  words,  the  biblia  became  the  biblion.  "  The 
Books  "  became  "  The  Book  of  God."  "  The  Books 
of  the  New  Covenant "  became  the  New  Testament. 

How  remarkable  this  is  I  think  you  will  see  when 
vou    remember    that    the    apostles    never    gathered 


10  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

together  (as  some  have  supposed)  and  held  a  consulta- 
tion as  to  what  they  would  write,  one  of  them  declar- 
ing that  he  would  write  this  portion,  and  another  that 
he  would  write  that.  There  never  was  any  consultation 
or  calculation  at  all  in  regard  to  it ;  and  the  New  Tes- 
tament sprang  up  almost  as  a  matter  of  accident,  look- 
ing at  it  from  a  human  point  of  view. 

The  apostles  were  widely  separated :  some  in  Rome, 
some  in  Babylon,  some  in  Galilee,  and  some  in  Africa ; 
and  yet  each  one  wrote  with  a  condensation,  a  sim- 
plicity, a  sublimity,  and  a  spirituality  that  belong  to 
no  other  writings  of  man.  The  condensation  of  the 
apostolic  writing  is  something  wonderful.  Students 
of  literature  know  how  easy  it  is  to  fall  into  a  florid, 
diffuse  style,  and  how  exceedingly  hard  it  is  to  write 
in  a  condensed  way,  so  that  every  single  sentence  shall 
be  a  nugget  of  gold.  Look  into  the  books  of  the 
heathen,  and  you  find  there  a  single  grain  of  wheat  in 
a  bushel  of  chafif.  The  distinction  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  that  it  is  all  wheat,  there  is  not  one  single  grain 
of  chaff.     It  is  all  good,  and  it  is  all  divine. 

This  condensation,  as  a  mere  literary  effect,  is  utterly 
inexplicable,  unless  you  take  into  consideration  the 
guidance  of  God.  The  absence  of  all  self-assertion,  the 
absence  of  all  self-consciousness,  is  something  wonder- 
ful, but  also  the  sublimity  of  it  all.  There  are  more 
sublime  writings  in  this  New  Testament  than  there 
are,  I  think,  in  all  literature  besides,  unless  you  except 
the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  Things  that  are  un- 
seen and  eternal,  instead  of  things  that  are  seen,  occupy 
the  thought  and  glorify  the  style. 

Though  the  New  Testament  is  a  collection  by  eight 


THE    NEW    TESTAMENT    AS    A    WHOLE  II 

or  nine  different  writers,  you  have  a  unity  of  subject, 
spirit,  and  aim  that  is  absolutely  inexplicable  unless 
you  suppose  it  to  be  the  book  of  God ;  unless  you  be- 
lieve that  these  writers  were  spiritually  directed  in 
what  they  wrote;  so  that  their  writings,  taken  alto- 
gether, form  a  complete  and  organic  whole.  They 
builded  better  than  they  knew.  I  do  not  suppose  that 
one  of  these  writers,  not  even  Paul  himself,  had  any 
idea  that  his  Epistles  were  going  to  be  read  and  quoted 
as  they  have  been  read  and  quoted  this  morning.  I 
do  not  imagine  that  Paul  had  any  idea  that  his  wri- 
tings were  to  have  texts  taken  from  them,  and  that 
they  would  be  the  foundation  of  sermons  in  every 
country  on  earth.  No  one  of  the  New  Testament 
writers  had  any  idea  that  he  was  writing  part  of  a 
collection.  It  makes  no  difference  whether  he  did  or 
did  not.  God  knew ;  God  had  a  plan  and  purpose  in  it ; 
and  each  workman  had  to  lay  his  stone,  each  had  to 
build  up  his  part  of  the  structure.  While  there  was 
growth,  while  there  was  a  gradual  collection,  the  New 
Testament,  at  last,  became  one  organic  whole,  through 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  worked  in  and 
through  these  writings  and  their  writers. 

I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  there  are  no  imperfections 
in  this  book ;  but  I  also  do  not  mean  to  say  that  there 
is  falsity  or  error  here.  It  is  divine  communication, 
iput  in  human  forms  and  molds.  There  is  some  bad 
grammar  now  and  then  in  the  Apocalypse;  there  are 
some  rhetorical  infelicities  that  could  not  stand  the 
test;  but  there  is  nothing  inconsistent  with  truth,  though 
the  writing  is  full  of  the  idiosyncrasies  of  the  writer. 
The  books  of  the  New  Testament  are  all  the  more 


12  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

adapted  to  reach  our  hearts,  they  are  all  the  more 
adapted  to  the  common  uses  of  life,  just  because  they 
come  from  living  hearts  and  minds  which  have  been 
touched  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  So  the  word  of  God  is 
the  Word  made  flesh,  just  as  Christ  is  the  Word  made 
flesh  in  another  way.  This  makes  the  New  Testament 
a  finality.  It  is  a  complete  thing.  It  is  never  to  be 
superseded,  for  example,  by  Mohammedanism,  by 
Swedenborgianism,  or  by  Mormonism,  each  of  which 
comes  to  us  with  a  new  revelation,  purporting  to  be 
from  God,  but  which  discloses  its  own  falsity  by  vio- 
lating the  fundamental  principle  that  nothing  is  to  be 
added  to  this  New  Testament,  because  it  is  an  organic 
whole,  a  complete  revelation. 

There  is  just  one  thought  further,  and  that  is  this: 
Every  organic  whole  is  articulate,  and  is  to  be  looked 
upon  in  that  aspect,  as  well  as  in  the  aspect  of  its 
organic  wholeness.  This  human  body  of  ours  is  an 
organ,  but  there  are  articulate  parts.  There  is  the 
circulatory  system,  and  there  is  the  respiratory  sys- 
tem; we  have  our  different  limbs  for  various  oflices; 
and  there  is  the  brain  and  the  heart.  While  these  are 
all  parts  of  one  whole,  yet  the  fact  that  there  is  an 
organic  whole  does  not  prevent  the  existence  of  sepa- 
rate members,  with  separate  oflices.  The  New  Testa- 
ment is  peculiarly  articulate.  I  might  say  that  it  has 
its  articulate  parts,  and  no  two  of  those  members  have 
precisely  the  same  oflice.  There  are  three  great  divi- 
sions in  the  New  Testament;  and  if  I  impress  nothing 
else  upon  your  minds  to-day,  I  should  like  to  impress 
upon  you  the  fact  that  there  is  a  threefold  division  in 
the  New  Testament,  which  we  cannot  safely  discard. 


THE    NEW    TESTAMENT    AS    A    WHOLE  1 3 

In  the  first  place,  there  is  history;  in  the  second 
place,  doctrine;  and  in  the  third  place,  prophecy. 
Where  do  we  have  the  history?  Why,  we  see  at  once 
that  we  have  the  history,  as  a  basis  of  all,  in  the  life 
of  Christ  and  the  apostles.  In  other  words,  the  Gos- 
p>els  and  the  Acts  give  us  the  basis  of  the  whole,  the 
foundation  of  the  structure.  Then  what  comes  next? 
Why,  there  comes  doctrine.  Where  have  we  that 
doctrine?  We  have  it  in  a  long  series  of  Epistles.  I 
believe  there  are  twenty-one  of  them  in  all — Epistles 
in  which  the  spiritual  meaning  of  Christ's  life  is  given 
us;  and  these  doctrinal  teachings  of  the  apostles  con- 
tain for  us  something  remarkable  in  this,  that  they 
almost,  without  exception,  explain  the  germinal  say- 
ings and  teachings  of  Jesus  Christ  himself.  In  other 
words,  under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  they 
expound  the  meaning  of  what  Jesus  Christ  himself  com- 
municated. But  we  are  not  left  the  doctrinal  teachings 
simply;  we  have  also,  as  it  were,  the  gates  of  heaven 
opened  and  a  view  of  the  future  bestowed  upon  us. 
History,  Doctrine,  Prophecy.  Jesus  Christ  in  the  flesh 
on  the  earth,  teaching  in  the  Gospels ;  then,  Jesus  Christ 
in  his  church  teaching  through  the  Epistles ;  and,  finally, 
Jesus  Christ  in  heaven,  the  future  glory  and  reward  of 
the  righteous.  These  are  the  three  parts  of  the  New 
Testament. 

The  New  Testament  is  not  only  an  organic  whole, 
but  it  is  an  articulate  whole.  It  has  its  separate  mem- 
bers as  well  as  its  organic  unity.  This  great  structure 
has  its  foundation  in  the  Gospels  and  in  the  Acts;  its 
superstructure  in  the  doctrinal  teaching  of  the  Epistles ; 
and  its  crowning  dome,   from  which  it  looks  up  to 


14  THE    BOOKS   OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

heaven  and  out  to  the  great  hereafter,  in  the  prophecies 
of  the  Apocalypse. 

You  notice  there  is  some  similarity  between  the  New 
and  the  Old  Testament.  The  Old  Testament  began 
with  history;  then  gave  material  for  teaching  and  for 
worship  in  the  Psalms  and  the  Proverbs;  and  finally 
concluded  with  prophecy.  So  the  New  Testament 
gives  history  first,  then  doctrine,  and  finally  prophecy. 

I  trust  we  have  now  a  glimpse  of  the  organism  of  the 
New  Testament.  The  historical  portion  is  an  organism 
of  itself,  the  treatment  of  which  I  must  leave  for 
another  time.  The  doctrinal  portion  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament has  its  organic  relations  also,  and  so  it  is  with 
the  Apocalypse.  I  give  you  to-day  only  the  three 
great  divisions,  the  main  divisions  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment: History,  Doctrine,  and  Prophecy. 

Even  with  these  few  words  that  I  have  been  able  to 
speak  to  you  this  morning,  contrast  this  organic  whole 
of  the  New  Testament  with  what  you  find  in  the  Mo- 
hammedan Koran.  What  is  the  Koran?  The  Koran 
is  a  shapeless  mass  of  accidental  accretions,  to  which 
no  human  being  can  find  beginning,  middle,  or  end. 
It  stamps  itself  at  the  very  beginning,  and  to  the  very 
end  it  proves  itself,  as  being  purely  the  work  of  man. 
The  New  Testament,  on  the  other  hand,  in  contrast 
with  heathen  writings,  gives  us  a  complete  whole,  as 
beautiful  a  structure,  taken  altogether,  as  the  Parthe- 
non on  the  Acropolis  at  Athens,  or  the  Saint  Peter's  at 
Rome ;  and  all  this  has  grown  up,  not  by  the  wisdom  of 
man,  but  by  the  wisdom  and  the  power  of  God.  Here 
you  have  a  progressive  revelation,  gradually  advancing 
with  the  development  of  Christ's  doctrine,   until  at 


THE    NEW    TESTAMENT    AS    A    WHOLE  1 5 

last  the  whole  structure  is  complete,  and  we  have  *'  all 
things  that  pertain  to  life  and  godliness." 

Not  only  is  this  true  of  the  New  Testament,  but  it  is 
true  also  of  the  relation  of  the  New  to  the  Old.  The 
Bible  begins  with  the  words,  "  In  the  beginning,  God 
created  the  heavens  and  the  earth  "  ;  and  it  ends  with  the 
words,  "  Even  so  come.  Lord  Jesus."  The  very  begin- 
ning and  the  very  end.  And  this  magnificent  revelation 
is  a  great  bridge  spanning  the  interval  between.  How 
wonderfully  the  Bible  ends !  How  wonderful  the  New 
Testament  is,  in  giving  us  first  the  basis  of  historical 
fact,  before  any  inferences  are  to  be  drawn,  before  any 
doctrines  are  to  be  taught,  before  any  application,  be- 
fore any  prophecies.  You  have  the  solid  basis  of  his- 
torical fact  in  the  life  and  death  and  resurrection  of 
Jesus  Christ. 

You  see  how  important  it  is,  then,  that  we  should 
begin  with  understanding  something  of  the  life  of 
Christ,  because  that  life  of  Christ  is  the  substance  of 
the  Gospels.  Without  understanding  it,  we  cannot 
understand  the  gospel  itself;  and,  therefore,  next 
Sunday,  if  Providence  permits,  I  will  treat  in  a  general 
way  of  the  life  of  Christ,  and  try  to  give  you  some 
general  views  of  that  life,  the  relation  of  its  separate 
years  to  each  other,  and  then  the  relation  of  that  life 
of  Christ  to  the  Gospels  of  which  we  talk. 


J 


THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

I  INTEND,  next  Sunday,  to  speak  of  "  The  Gospels  and 
their  Origin,"  and  this  morning  to  speak  of  something 
prehminary  to  that,  viz.,  "  The  True  Conception  of 
the  Life  of  our  Lord."  That  Hfe  of  Christ  constitutes 
the  basis  and  substance  of  the  Gospel  record;  and  it 
has  seemed  to  me  that,  before  studying  the  Gospels,  we 
may  do  well  to  get  into  our  minds  some  general  con- 
siderations in  regard  to  the  life  of  Christ  himself. 

The  first  thing  that  needs  to  be  impressed  upon  us 
is  that  this  life  of  Jesus  Christ  is  the  life  of  an  infinite 
Being  upon  the  earth.  We  cannot  enter  upon  the  study 
of  the  Gospels  in  the  proper  spirit,  and  we  cannot  un- 
derstand them  at  all,  unless  we  appreciate  the  fact  that 
this  person  who  is  set  before  us  here  is  the  Lord  God 
Almighty,  although  he  is  veiled  in  human  flesh.  In 
other  words,  we  have  here,  as  John  intimates  to  us, 
the  temporal  life  of  the  Eternal  Word,  the  Word  made 
flesh,  full  of  grace  and  truth. 

We  know  what  words  are  among  men.  We  know 
that  they  are  symbols  of  communication,  that  they  are 
mediums  of  expression.  I  pass  along  the  street ;  I  hear 
a  word  of  blasphemy  or  obscenity,  and  that  single 
word  opens  to  me  the  depths  of  an  evil  heart.  I  hear 
a  word  of  kindness,  I  hear  a  word  of  compassion,  and 
such  a  word  as  that  is  a  revelation  to  me  of  a  gentle 
and  beautiful  soul.  By  a  single  word  I  am  let  into  the 
inmost  life  of  another.  In  just  such  a  way  God's 
i6 


THE    LIFE    OF    CHRIST  I7 

word  is  the  medium  of  expression,  the  vehicle  of  com- 
munication, between  God  and  his  creatures. 

The  word  of  God  of  which  we  spoke  last  Sunday 
was  the  outward  Scripture.  The  Word  of  God  of 
which  we  speak  to-day  is  something  back  of  the  out- 
ward Scripture,  of  which  the  outward  Scripture  is  an 
expression,  viz.,  the  everlasting  Word  that  was  with 
God  before  the  world  was,  and  which  was  God;  that 
Word  of  God,  God's  medium  of  expression,  God's  ve- 
hicle of  communication,  is  Jesus  Christ.  He  existed 
before  he  came  in  the  flesh.  He  exists  now,  although 
he  is  not  here  in  the  flesh  with  us,  but  is  in  heaven. 
From  the  beginning  to  the  end  he  is  the  only  Revealer 
of  God.  It  is  Jesus  Christ  through  whom  God  created 
the  world.  It  is  he  who  upholds  all  things  by  the  word 
of  his  power.  It  is  he  who  conducted  the  history  of 
the  people  of  Israel  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  was  this 
Eternal  Word  who  thundered  and  lightened  from  the 
top  of  Mount  Sinai,  just  as  truly  as  it  was  he  who  ut- 
tered the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
only  Revealer  of  God ;  and  we  know  nothing  of  God 
whatever,  except  it  be  through  the  Revealer,  Jesus 
Christ.  God  in  himself,  apart  from  Christ,  is  utterly 
unknown.  No  man  has  seen  God  at  any  time ;  that  is, 
apart  from  God's  own  purpose  and  method  of  revela- 
tion in  Jesus  Christ,  no  human  being  could  ever  have 
knowledge  of  him  or  come  into  communication  with 
him.  Jesus  Christ  is  the  one  and  only  Revealer  of 
God;  in  fact,  we  may  say,  Jesus  Christ  is  the  one  and 
only  Word  that  God  ever  spoke  or  that  God  ever  will 
speak,  either  to  us,  his  human  creatures,  or  to  any 
of  the  intelligences  that  he  has  made  or  ever  will  make ; 

B 


l8  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

and  that,  simply  because  Jesus  Christ  in  his  eternal 
nature  is  the  principle  of  revelation  in  God.  There  is 
no  revelation  aside  from  or  apart  from  him.  You 
might  just  as  well  think  of  knowing  the  great  dynamo, 
from  which  proceeds  the  electricity  that  lights  our 
streets,  without  the  current  of  electricity  proceeding 
from  it,  as  to  think  of  knowing  God  without  Jesus 
Christ.  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Revealer  of  God;  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  only  way  by  which  God  ever  makes  him- 
self known.  Therefore,  he  that  has  seen  him,  "  hath 
seen  the  Father  " ;  therefore,  "  he  that  doeth  my  will 
shall  know  of  the  doctrine."  There  is,  therefore,  now 
no  other  name  given  under  heaven  to  man,  whereby  we 
may  be  saved,  except  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Now,  it  is  very  evident,  is  it  not,  that  you  cannot 
know  anything  that  is  infinite  and  absolute,  unless 
tliat  infinite  and  absolute  thing  somehow  comes  under 
limitation?  How  are  you  going  to  know  that  which 
you  cannot  distinguish  from  anything  else,  and  how 
can  you  possibly  distinguish  one  thing  from  another, 
unless  there  are  some  limitations  about  that  thing?  If 
there  is  nothing  else  apart  from  it,  you  cannot  know  it; 
and,  therefore,  God  himself,  the  Infinite  and  the  Abso- 
lute One,  must  necessarily  come  into  conditions  or  lim- 
itations, in  order  that  we  may  know  him.  You  cannot 
know  that  which  is  absolutely  unlimited.  You  cannot 
know  that  which  does  not  come  into  such  conditions 
and  relations  that  it  is  in  contact  with  yourself,  your 
faculty  of  knowing.  Jesus  Christ,  the  Infinite  and  Ab- 
solute Being,  who  otherwise  would  be  unknown,  came 
into  such  limitations  and  relations  with  his  finite  crea- 
tures that  he  can  be  understood,  can  be  known  by  us; 


THE    LIFE    OF    CHRIST  I9 

and  so  we  have  the  great  God  coming  down  into  finite 
humanity  and  living  a  finite  life,  in  order  that  we  may 
understand  him  and  knov^Jiim. 

It  is  just  as  if  the  ruler  of  a  great  people,  in  order 
that  each  one  of  the  least  and  lowest  of  his  subjects 
might  understand  him  and  know  what  he  is,  should 
come  and  live  the  life  of  the  poorest  and  lowliest  among 
them  all,  in  order  that  he  might  teach  them  how  to 
live  and  might  teach  them  something  of  his  compas- 
sionate love.  Just  as  if  the  greatest  of  teachers  should 
leave  his  desk  of  instruction  and  go  down  into  the 
A,  B,  C  class  of  his  school,  and  put  himself  side  by  side 
with  the  least  and  humblest  of  his  pupils,  in  order  that 
he  might  teach  this  pupil  how  to  learn;  so  the  great 
God  has  evinced  his  compassion,  his  tenderness,  his 
consideration  for  the  weak,  finite  creatures  whom  he 
has  made,  by  taking  part  with  them  in  their  ignorance 
and  their  weakness  and  their  limitations,  in  order  that 
he  might  show  them  what  he  is  and  show  them  what 
they  ought  to  be. 

Now,  there  are  some  who  do  not  understand  this 
limitation  of  God,  this  self-limitation  of  an  Infinite 
One.  They  think  that  it  is  unworthy  of  the  great 
God  so  to  contract  himself  within  the  limits  of  the 
human  life.  They  would  have  God  live  apart  in  seclu- 
sion, as  the  Greeks  represent  their  gods  on  hills,  care- 
less of  mankind.  They  think  that  would  be  worthy, 
more  worthy  of  the  Godhead. 

Well,  I  have  seen  a  great  burly  rufiian  walking  in 
the  street  with  a  little  child ;  and  I  have  seen  that  great 
rufiian  stride  along  and  drag  his  little  girl  after  him, 
cursing  her  because  she  could  not  go  as  fast  as  he,  and 


r 


20  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

pass  over  the  obstacles  in  their  path  with  the  same  ease 
as  he;  but  I  never  thought  that  indicated  any  great 
nobility  or  dignity  on  his  part.  And  I  have  seen  a 
father,  a  great  strong  man,  able  to  w^alk  fast  enough 
himself,  slackening  his  pace  and  adapting  himself  to 
the  pace  of  his  little  child,  talking  to  her  by  the  way, 
taking  her  weakness  into  consideration,  and  letting 
himself  down  to  her  infirmities,  and  lifting  her  over 
the  hard  places  by  the  way ;  and  I  have  said  to  myself : 
there  is  a  great  deal  more  nobility  and  dignity  in  that 
than  there  was  in  the  conduct  of  the  burly  ruffian  that 
I  saw  awhile  ago,  and  who  thought  himself  too  great 
to  care  for  a  child. 

Now,  that  is  what  God  does.  The  Infinite  Being 
shows  his  dignity  and  his  glory  by  coming  down,  by 
considering  our  weakness,  by  putting  himself  at  our 
side,  by  entering  into  our  home  life,  by  slackening  his 
pace,  by  teaching  us  as  if  we  were  little  children,  ma- 
king himself  a  little  child,  as  it  were,  in  order  that  he 
may  show  us  what  he  is  and  may  make  us  like  himself. 
That  is  what  God  did,  when  the  Eternal  Word,  the 
only  Revealer  of  God,  the 'equal  of  God,  came  down 
into  this  earthly  life  and  became  a  babe,  and  passed 
through  all  the  measures  and  stages  of  human  develop- 
ment, in  order  that  he  might  give  us  an  object-lesson 
and  show  us  what  God  was,  in  a  way  that  we  could  com- 
prehend. Ah,  THERE  is  nobility,  there  is  dignity,  there 
is  something  divine !  It  is  in  the  God-man,  therefore, 
Christ  Jesus,  that  we  have  the  most  vivid,  the  most 
wonderful  representation  of  the  true  nature  of  God, 
the  compassion,  the  condescension,  the  love  of  God, 
as  well  as  his  purity  and   truth  and  power;   for  it 


THE    LIFE    OF    CHRIST  21 

takes  power  so  to  limit  one's  self  and  bring  one's  self 
down  to  the  limits  of  human  nature. 

Christ,  then,  is  not  only  the  Word,  but  he  is  the 
Word  made  flesh.  He  is  the  Word,  in  infinite  love, 
limiting  himself  in  such  a  way  that  we  can  understand 
him ;  and  the  life  of  Jesus  Christ  is  the  life  of  this  Infinite 
Being  in  these  finite  limitations.  When  an  Infinite  Be- 
ing comes  dow^n  to  these  limitations  of  a  finite  life,  he 
will  not,  in  all  respects,  appear  as  an  infinite  Being,  but 
will  take  upon  him  the  forms  and  modes  of  human  liv- 
ing. In  other  words,  he  will  be  subject  to  the  laws  of 
human  development,  just  as  we,  his  finite  creatures,  are. 

I  remember  very  well  the  time  when  this  doctrine 
was  first  propounded  to  me,  and  the  shock  it  gave  to 
my  early  conceptions,  my  misconceptions,  as  I  think 
them  now\  I  had  been  taught  (or,  if  I  had  not  been 
taught,  I  had  somehow  grown  up  to  think)  that  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  through  all  the  stages  of  his  earthly 
life,  was  Immanuel,  God  with  us;  that  all  things  were 
open  to  his  knowledge ;  and  that  he  was  always  exert- 
ing his  infinite  power.  I  remember,  when  my  teacher 
talked  to  me  about  the  suffering  of  Christ  upon  Cal- 
vary, in  my  heart  I  said :  "  Why,  Christ  could  not 
suffer ;  that  must  have  been  a  mere  appearance ;  Christ 
was  God,  and  God  could  not  suffer  " ;  and  so  all  the 
representations  which  the  teacher  made  of  the  suffering 
of  Christ  passed  over  my  head,  and  made  no  impres- 
sion upon  me.  I  was  one  of  the  Docetse,  without 
knowing  it.  I  regarded  the  suffering  of  Christ  as 
merely  a  matter  of  appearance;  I  thought  he  could 
not  suffer.  Then,  when  I  heard  a  sermon  during  my 
college   course,    in   which   it   was   intimated   that   the 


22  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

appearance  of  Christ  in  the  temple  at  twelve  years  old 
might  have  been  the  time  when  first  our  Saviour  caine 
to  the  knowledge  of  what  he  was  as  the  Sent  of  God, 
the  Son  of  God,  it  seemed  to  me  as  if  all  the  founda- 
tions of  my  Christian  belief  were  being  shaken.  I 
said :  *'  Did  not  Christ  know  who  he  was,  and  what 
his  work  was,  from  the  very  beginning?"  Now,  I 
have  come  to  think  that  at  that  time  I  misconstrued 
the  meaning  of  the  Scripture  record,  and  did  not  give 
full  weight  to  some  declarations  of  Scripture  which 
are  of  very  great  importance.  Do  not  the  Scriptures 
say  that  Jesus,  as  a  child,  grew  in  wisdom  as  well  as 
in  stature,  and  in  favor  with  God  and  man?  Then,  if 
he  grew  in  wisdom,  there  must  have  been  a  growth 
from  a  less  degree  of  knowledge  to  a  greater;  there 
must  have  been  a  more  incomplete  consciousness  of 
his  duty  and  of  the  work  that  he  was  to  do,  at  the 
beginning  of  his  life,  than  there  was  in  the  latter  por- 
tion of  his  life.  And,  when,  in  the  Gospels,  we  read 
that  declaration  of  Christ  himself,  "  Of  that  day  and 
that  hour  knoweth  no  man,  neither  the  angels  of  God, 
neither  the  Son,"  we  have  there  a  distinct  declaration 
of  the  Saviour's  ignorance  with  regard  to  the  time 
of  the  end.  There  were  limitations  to  the  knowledge 
of  Christ  while  he  was  here  upon  the  earth.  He  took 
upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant;  he  divested  himself 
of  the  exercise  of  his  attributes  when  he  became  man ; 
and  he  went  through  a  process  of  human  development, 
gradual  growth  in  the  consciousness  of  what  he  was, 
which  was  analogous  to  the  development  through 
which  every  son  of  Adam  must  pass.  It  was  a  mark 
of   his   condescension   and    divine   love   that   he    was 


THE    LIFE    OF    CHRIST 


23 


willing  to  put  himself  under  these  limitations,  and  to 
advance  toward  perfectness  and  knowledge  through 
the  ordinary  paths  of  human  learning  and  obedience. 
He  learned  obedience  by  the  things  he  suffered. 

You  all  know  that  if  the  reservoir  south  of  the  city 
were  ever  so  full,  you  would  get  in  your  basin  at 
home  only  that  amount  of  water  which  was  propor- 
tionate to  the  size  of  the  pipe  through  which  the  water 
flowed.  The  reservoir  might  be  ever  so  large,  but  it 
could  never  pour  into  your  house  in  a  larger  stream 
than  the  size  of  the  pipe  permitted. 

Just  so  there  was  an  ocean-like  fulness  of  resource 
in  Jesus  Christ.  He  was  the  Infinite  and  Eternal  Word ; 
but  the  channel  of  communication  to  man  was  only 
as  large  as  the  human  nature  which  he  possessed. 
Therefore,  in  those  communications,  he  adapted  him- 
self to  the  limitations  of  humanity.  He  did  not  al- 
ways know,  and  he  did  not  always  act,  as  God.  Some- 
times he  was  permitted  by  the  Holy  Spirit  thus  to 
do;  and  out  of  this  ocean-like  fulness  of  resource,  he 
showed  that  he  knew  what  was  in  man.  Sometimes  the 
veil  was  lifted ;  but  ordinarily  the  veil  of  humanity  was 
before  his  eyes,  and  he  walked  by  faith  just  as  we 
walk  by  faith. 

If  you  could  imagine  the  mind  of  a  Humboldt,  with 
all  his  vast  amount  of  knowledge,  being  permitted  to 
come  back  here  to  this  earthly  sphere  and  to  be  taber- 
nacled once  more  in  an  earthly  form ;  if  you  could  be- 
lieve that  the  transmigration  of  souls  were  possible, 
and  the  soul  of  Humboldt  should  once  more  take  an 
earthly  body;  you  may  be  very  sure  that,  if  it  took  the 
body  of  an  infant,  it  could  not  manifest  itself  except  in 


24  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

an  infantile  way,  and  it  could  only  gradually  show  the 
powers  that  were  inherent  in  it.  And  so,  if  the  Deity 
itself  becomes  united  to  human  flesh,  if  the  Deity 
itself  joins  itself  to  humanity,  you  may  be  very  sure 
that  the  ways  by  which  the  Deity  will  manifest  itself 
through  the  humanity  will  be  adapted  to  the  humanity 
which  is  taken  into  union  with  itself.  You  will  not  have 
everything  revealed,  as  in  a  flash;  there  will  be  a 
gradual  progress  in  knowledge ;  and  there  will  be  a 
gradual  unfolding  of  the  knowledge  which  he  has 
gained.  Let  us  remember  that  our  Lord  became  a 
servant  for  us;  that  our  Lord,  while  he  was  here  on 
the  earth,  was  living  what  we  may  call  an  infinite  life 
under  the  forms  of  space  and  time;  living  the  life  of 
God  in  the  flesh  of  man;  and,  therefore,  we  may  find 
in  the  life  of  Christ  something  which  justifies  our  look- 
ing for  a  larger  revelation  of  his  purpose  as  he  goes 
on.  We  can  find  that,  although  he  never  passed  from 
the  teaching  of  falsehood  to  the  teaching  of  truth — he 
is  always  the  Eternal  Truth,  and  just  as  far  as  he 
does  teach  he  teaches  the  truth  of  God — yet,  at  the  same 
time,  the  truth  as  he  unfolds  it  now  may  be  less  com- 
plete than  the  truth  as  he  unfolds  it  hereafter.  You 
know  he  himself  tells  us  that  there  are  many  things  he 
could  not  say  to  us  now,  but  he  will  show  them  to  us 
hereafter ;  and  so  we  find  that  there  is  progress  in  the 
teaching  of  Christ,  and  that  there  is  progress  in  the 
development  of  Christ  himself,  through  the  Gospels; 
although,  at  the  last,  he  is  the  risen  and  glorified  Son 
of  God. 

At  the  very  beginning  of  his  ministry,  in  his  dis- 
course with  Nicodemus,  he  shows  that  he  has  before 


THE    LIFE    OF    CHRIST  25 

him  the  whole  outline  of  his  ministerial  work,  he  shows 
that  the  main  features  of  his  doctrine  are  clear  to  his 
mind.  The  greatest  truths  of  Christianity  are  un- 
folded there,  in  that  discourse  to  the  Jewish  ruler ;  and 
yet  it  was  only  when  the  apostles  had  come,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  had  been  bestowed,  that  the  germinal  truth 
was  expanded,  filled  out,  and  elucidated. 

So,  our  Lord  was  not  so  much  a  teacher  as  he  was 
the  subject  of  teaching.  We  do  not  deny  that  he  was  a 
teacher.  He  was  the  prophet  of  his  own  work ;  and  one 
of  his  great  offices  was  that  of  prophetic  teacher  of 
mankind ;  but,  after  all,  his  teaching  was  not  completed 
when  he  was  here  in  the  flesh.  He  has  been  teaching 
through  his  Gospels  and  teaching  through  his  Spirit 
ever  since;  and  so  we  have,  in  Christ,  the  subject  of 
the  Gospels.  We  have  in  him  the  truth.  In  fact,  we 
may  say,  we  have  in  Jesus  Christ  the  gospel  itself.  He 
is  the  glad  news.  He  is  the  embodied  reconciliation 
between  God  and  man;  the  God-man  shows  forth  the 
perfect  union  between  humanity  and  the  Deity  which 
he  has  come  to  accomplish;  and  so  he  is  not  only  a 
union  between  man  and  God,  but  he  is  the  sacrifice  for 
sins  also. 

I  spoke  of  self-limitation,  and  I  spoke  of  letting  one's 
self  down,  in  order  to  be  understood,  into  the  finite, 
in  order  that  the  finite  might  comprehend  the  Infinite. 
Ah,  what  a  self-limitation  there  was,  when  this  Being, 
who  was  God  as  well  as  man,  died  upon  the  cross,  that 
he,  who  was  everlasting  life,  should,  in  connection 
with  the  finite  humanity,  suffer  death!  He  who  was 
rich  became  poor,  in  order  that  we,  through  his  . 
poverty,  might  be  made  rich.     He  emptied  himself,    A 


26  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

f  became  of  no  reputation,  in  order  that  we  might  under- 
^stand  God.  He  made  a  sacrifice  for  sin  by  sacrificing 
himself.  He  was  the  Lamb  of  God,  slain  from  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world;  and  now  this  divine- 
human  Being,  this  Being  in  whom  infinite  truth  and 
love  and  mercy  are  brought  down  to  our  human  com- 
prehension and  engaged  in  the  work  of  our  salvation; 
this  Being  lived  a  human  life,  and  the  story  of  that 
human  life  is  given  us  in  the  Gospels  that  we  are  to 
study.  That  life  unfolded  itself  according  to  a  divine 
plan.  Our  Lord  had  that  plan  in  his  mind  at  the  very 
beginning  of  his  ministry. 

There  were  three  different  years  of  our  Lord's  min- 
istry, each  of  which  had  its  own  particular  purpose. 
To  a  very  brief  description  of  the  three  years  of  our 
Lord's  ministry  and  the  purpose  of  each  one  of  those 
years,  I  wish  to  give  a  few  moments  this  morning. 

The^rst  year  of  Jesus'  ministry  was  devoted  to  an 
appeal  to  the  authorities  of  Israel,  an  appeal  to  the 
Jewish  rulers,  an  appeal  to  the  constituted  judges  of 
the  nation,  and  unless  we  understand  this  we  cannot 
understand  the  first  year  of  Jesus'  work,  nor  the  relation 
of  that  first  year  to  the  years  that  followed.  Jesus  was 
the  King.  He  came  first  to  those  that  were  in  authority, 
and  he  presented  his  claim  to  kingship.  He  was  Jeho- 
vah. He  came  as  Jehovah  to  his  temple,  the  Messenger 
of  the  Covenant,  in  whom  the  Jews  ought  to  have  de- 
lighted, though  they  did  not.  He  presented  his  claims 
as  king  to  the  constituted  authorities  of  Israel :  this 
was  the  purpose  and  object  of  his  first  year  of  ministry. 
During  that  first  year,  you  remember,  he  spoke  to 
Nicodemus,  one  of  the  rulers  of  the  Jews,     During 


THE    LIFE    OF    CHRIST  2^ 

that  year  he  began  his  ministry  by  miracles  in  the 
temp]e_and  by  the  cleansing  of  the  temple ;  and  during 
that  year  also,  he  made  the  acquaintance  of  those  sisters 
of^Bethany,  and  their  brother  Lazarus,  whom  he  raised 
from  the  dead.  The  incidents  of  it  are  described  nor 
by  Matthew,  Mark,  or  Luke,  but  only  by  the  apostle 
John. 

I  have  spoken  of  this  Judean  ministry  as  occupying 
a  year,  in  round  numbers,  as  one  might  say.  It  will 
help  our  memory  to  divide  the  Saviour's  ministry  into 
three  years,  although  those  years  were  not  exact  in 
their  beginning  and  their  end.  The  first  year  of  Jesus' 
ministry  was  really  eight  months  instead  of  twelve 
months;  and  the  latter  portion  of  it,  after  he  had  been 
rejected  by  the  rulers,  was  spent  in  going  about  with 
a  few  of  his  disciples,  those  first  chosen,  among  the 
cities  of  Galilee,  and  informing  them  all,  as  it  were,  in 
regard  to  the  purpose  of  his  mission. 

During  those  eight  months  many  were  baptized;  so 
many  were  baptized  that  the  attention  of  the  Jewish 
rulers  began  to  be  turned  from  John  the  Baptist,  be- 
cause Jesus  baptized  more  than  John.  Their  enmity 
was  beginning  to  turn  from  John  to  himself ;  and  Jesus 
saw  that  to  continue  his  work  in  Judea  would  be  to 
leave  unperformed  his  whole  mission,  would  be  to 
anticipate  his  death;  for,  just  as  they  put  John  the* 
Baptist  to  death,  just  so  would  they  have  put  Jesus  to 
death,  two  years  before  his  time.  Therefore  Jesus 
was  obliged  to  withdraw;  and  this  ministry  to  the 
authorities  of  the  people  came  to  an  end.  It  served 
his  purpose;  it  tested  them;  it  was  a  probation;  they 
had  had  their  of^er;  and  now  they  are  rejecting  him 


28  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

of  whom^Moses  in  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  did  write. 
The  authorities  of  the  people  had  turned  their  backs 
on  the  Son  of  God;  the  rulers  rejected  him;  and  he 
was  compelled  to  leave  Jerusalem. 

He  begins  the  second  year  of  his  ministry  in  Gali- 
lee, in  the  freer  and  broader  light  of  northern  Pales- 
tine, away  from  the  traditional  influences  and  the  super- 
stition of  the  central  city,  Jerusalem.  The  second 
year  of  our  Lord's  ministry  was  devoted  to  an  appeal 
to  the  people  at  large,  an  appeal  to  the  popular  element 
among  the  Jews.  In  Galilee  he  begins  to  preach  to 
the  people  rather  than  to  the  rulers;  the  rulers  are  far 
away.  He  addresses  himself  to  the  common  heart  of 
man;  and  that  Galilean  ministry  begins  with  the  choos- 
ing of  the  apostles  upon  the  summit  of  one  mount — the 
mount  where  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  was  preached ; 
and  it  ends  with  another  mount — the  Mount  of  Trans- 
figuration. Between  those  two,  the  mount  where  the 
sermon  was  preached  and  the  Mount  of  Transfigura- 
tion, lies  the  whole  of  the  Galilean  ministry.  It  wasjn 
Galilee  rather  than  in  Judea  that  his  greatest  miracles 
were  wrought.  It  was  in  Galilee  that  the  most  of  his 
parables,  most  of  his  public  teaching  was  given.  It 
was  in  Galilee  that  the  greatest  multitudes  followed 
him.  You  remember  it  was  there  he  fed  the  five 
thousand,  and  at  another  time  the  four  thousand.  This 
ministry  in  Galilee  went  on  until  it  became  perfectly 
evident  that  the  great  crowds  that  followed  him  were 
more  bent  upon  the  victuals  he  brought  than  upon 
the  meat  that  endureth  to  everlasting  life.  The  Jews, 
as  a  people,  rejected  Christ  just  as  decisively  as  their 
rulers  had  done.     In  other  words,  the  second  year  of 


THE    LIFE    OF    CHRIST  29 

Christ's  ministry  was  an  unsuccessful  appeal  to  the 
hearts  of  the  people,  just  as  the  first  year  had  been  an 
unsuccessful  appeal  to  the  hearts  of  the  rulers.  There- 
fore the  second  year  of  Christ's  ministry  ended  also. 
Having  appealed  to  the  rulers  the  first  year  unsuccess- 
fully, and  having  appealed  to  the  people  the  second 
year  unsuccessfully,  what  remained?  Only  this,  that 
he  should  now  appeal  to  the  hearts  of  a  few  loved  dis- 
ciples ;  that  he  should  jprepare  them  by  instruction  for 
the  work  which  it  was  not  appointed  that  he  himself 
should  do ;  that  he  should,  in  other  words,  train  up  the 
future  pillars  of  his  church,  and  give  them  his  promises; 
draw  them  into  intimate  intercourse  with  himself ;  give 
them  some  conception  of  what  he  was;  make  them 
ready  for  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  they  would  be 
endowed  with  power  from  on  high;  and  prepare  them 
to  go  forth  to  all  the  world  and  preach  his  gospel. 

If  I  am  not  mistaken,  if  you  will  take  the  Gospels 
and  read  them  with  these  subdivrsions  in  mind  that  I 
have  given  you,  you  will  get  a  great  deal  of  light  upon 
the  meaning  of  Christ's  teaching  and  of  Christ's  won- 
derful works.  The  first  year  is  a  year  of  appeal  to  the 
hierarchy,  to  the  rulers;  the  second  year  is  a  year  of 
appeal  to  the  people;  and  the  third  year  is  a  year  of 
appeal  to  his  disciples. 

In  the  latter  part  of  Jesus'  life,  you  will  find  that  the 
instruction  becomes  more  esoteric,  it  becomes  more 
intimate.  Jesus  lets  his  disciples  into  the  secret  of  his 
life.  Jesus,  after  they  have  confessed  that  he  is  the 
Son  of  God,  after  they  have  seen  his  glory  on  the 
Mount  of  Transfiguration,  tells  them  that  he  must  be 
rejected  by  the  scribes  and   Pharisees  and   must  be 


30  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

crucified.  He  goes  down  from  that  mount  of  glory, 
where  the  voice  had  spoken  to  him  from  on  high,  and 
takes  his  way  to  Jerusalem  to  suffer ;  and  he  goes  with 
such  a  majestic  mien  that  the  disciples  following  him 
are  amazed  and  afraid.  So  the  glory  was  only  the 
prelude  to  the  suffering,  and  Jesus  slipwed  that  he 
came  into  this  world  to  die.  He  came,  not  so  much 
to  teach  as  he  did  to  die;  and  this  death  of  Christ, 
which  we  celebrate  in  the  ordinances  of  the  Church, 
this  death  was  the  one  great  act  of  self-limitation  and 
self-sacrifice  which  the  Son  of  God  came  to  accomplish 
in  this  world.  In  other  words,  the  death  was  the  cul- 
mination of  the  life;  and  it  was  for  the  sake  of  that 
death  that  he  lived  here  at  all.  So  we  find  that,  in  the 
Gospels,  fully  one-third  of  each  narrative  is  taken  up 
with  the  incidents  and  events  connected  with  the  cru- 
cifixion or  immediately  leading  to  it,  and  only  per- 
haps two-thirds,  or  one-half,  of  all  is  devoted  to  the 
preliminary  life  of  Christ  and  his  preliminary  teaching. 
So,  we  have  an  infinite  life  lived  within  the  limitations 
of  humanity;  and  we  have  that  infinite  life  teaching 
man,  appealing  to  man,  rejected  by  man,  and  then 
prepared  to  die ;  and  only  as  we  have  that  view  of  the 
life  of  Christ,  the  infinite  within  the  bounds  of  the 
finite,  the  infinite  finally  giving  up  life  itself  for  the 
finite,  have  we  any  proper  conception  of  the  life  of 
Jesus  Christ.  We  are  to  study  Christ  in  order  that 
we  may  be  like  him ;  and  I  do  not  know  of  any  way  in 
which  we  can  learn  of  Christ,  except  by  reading  these 
accounts  of  Christ  which  are  given  us  in  the  Gospels. 

Having  thus  given  you  some  general  idea  of  what 
that   life   was,    we   shall   come   next    Sunday   to   the 


THE    LIFE    OF    CHRIST  3I 

consideration  of  the  Gospels  themselves ;  what  they  are, 
what  their  relations  are  one  to  another,  what  the  dis- 
tinguishing characteristics  are  of  each;  and  how  it 
was  that,  in  the  providence  of  God,  they  grew,  they 
originated,  they  came  to  be  what  we  have  them  to-day. 


THE  GOSPELS  AND  THEIR  ORIGIN 

I  AM  to  Speak  to-day  of  the  origin  of  the  Gospels, 
and  some  of  their  characteristics.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  that  an  oral  account,  an  account  of  the  life  and 
teachings  and  works  of  Jesus  Christ  that  passed  from 
mouth  to  mouth,  was  the  basis  of  our  present  Gospels. 
Indeed,  it  is  quite  certain  that  from  twenty  to  forty 
years  passed  before  the  Gospels  according  to  Matthew, 
Mark,  and  Luke  were  written  down.  During  those 
twenty  to  forty  years  the  story  of  each  of  these  Gospels 
had  been  current  in  quite  another  way.  It  had  been 
communicated  viva  voce,  by  the  living  voice.  This 
ought  not  to  surprise  us.  The  truth  is,  that  the  apos- 
tles were  primarily  teachers  and  only  secondarily 
writers. 

There  were  multitudes  of  converts  from  the  Jews 
and  from  the  Gentiles.  This  multitude  of  converts 
had  to  be  instructed,  and  instruction  in  those  days  was 
almost  wholly  by  word  of  mouth.  There  was  not  only 
preaching,  but  teaching ;  and  this  preaching  and  teach- 
ing was  all  personal  communication  of  one  individ- 
ual to  another.  You  remember  that  the  Sanhedrin 
commanded  Peter  and  John  no  more  to  preach  or 
teach  in  this  name.  They  put  no  prohibition  upon 
them  in  regard  to  writing.  Paul  taught  publicly  and 
from  house  to  house.  We  read  nothing  at  all  about 
his  writing  at  that  time. 

The  multitude  of  those  who  came  into  the  Christian 
32 


THE    GOSPELS    AND    THEIR    ORIGIN  33 

church  needed  just  this  personal  and  direct  instruction; 
and  the  memory  was  strong  in  those  days,  stronger 
probably  than  in  these  days  when  we  trust  so  much 
more  to  books.  The  Jews,  you  know,  could  repeat 
endless  genealogies.  Those  very  things  which  might 
seem  most  difficult  to  remember  they  had  deeply  im- 
pressed upon  their  minds ;  and  then,  they  not  only  had 
the  most  vivid  recollection  of  the  words  of  Jesus,  their 
Lord,  and  of  those  wonderful  three  years  they  had 
passed  in  intimate  intercourse  with  him,  but  it  was 
their  delight  to  speak  forth  the  things  they  had  seen 
and  heard;  and,  if  there  ever  was  a  lapse  of  memory, 
they  had  the  wonderful  promise  of  the  assistance  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  who  was  to  bring  to  their  remembrance 
all  these  things  with  regard  to  Christ,  so  that  they 
might  speak  of  the  things  of  Christ  and  show  them  to 
others. 

It  is  not  wonderful  that  the  apostles  were  primarily 
teachers;  and  in  their  teaching  there  must  have  been 
continual  repetition.  If  we  should  judge  the  teaching 
of  those  times  by  our  modern  standard,  we  should 
make  the  greatest  possible  mistake.  A  modern  teacher 
would  think  it  was  a  very  monotonous  thing  for  him 
to  say  over  and  over  again,  in  almost  precisely  the 
same  words,  the  lesson  he  had  to  teach;  but  this  was 
not  only  a  common  thing  among  the  Jews,  but  we  can 
almost  say  that  it  was  the  only  possible  thing.  They 
had,  you  recollect,  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  But 
there  were  very  few  who  knew  how  to  read,  and  the 
most  of  the  knowledge  the  people  had  with  regard 
to  these  Scriptures  was  what  they  had  gained  from 
the  public  reading  of  them.  So,  over  and  over  again, 
c 


34  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

the  Stories  of  the  Old  Testament  were  repeated;  and 
when  the  New  Testament  history  came  to  be  pro- 
claimed, it  naturally  was  proclaimed  in  the  same  way. 
There  was  no  prejudice  against  the  continual  repetition 
of  the  old,  old  story  with  regard  to  Jesus  and  his  love. 

But  there  was  naturally  a  selection  going  on  all  the 
while.  It  was  said  by  John  in  his  Gospel  that  the 
world  would  not  contain  the  things  that  would  be 
written  if  everything  were  written  out  It  is  very 
plain  that,  in  the  memory  of  the  apostles,  there  was 
a  great  deal  that  it  was  not  thought  best  by  them  or 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  should  be  put  down  permanently; 
and  it  was  not  desirable  that  there  should  be  a  record 
of  the  life  of  Christ  so  large  and  cumbersome  that  it 
would  break  down  with  its  own  weight.  It  was  desir- 
able that  just  those  scenes  and  just  those  teachings  of 
the  Saviour  should  be  selected  that  were  most  central 
and  vital,  in  order  that  the  Gospel  record,  when  at 
last  it  was  made  up,  should  be  just  as  simple,  just  as 
compact,  just  as  brief  as  it  could  possibly  be,  consist- 
ently with  giving  the  essential  facts  with  regard  to 
the  life  and  teachings  of  Jesus  Christ. 

So  there  was  a  continual  process  of  selection  going 
on.  Those  things  that  were  most  representative  in 
Christ's  teachings  came  to  be  more  and  more  insisted 
upon,  and  the  things  that  were  merely  incidental  began 
to  have  less  and  less  attention  paid  to  them;  and  then, 
as  there  were  different  classes  of  hearers,  the  truth 
that  was  adapted  to  that  particular  class  was  chosen 
in  speaking  to  them.  In  that  way  there  grew  up  cer- 
tain types  of  apostolic  doctrine.  One  apostle,  having 
a  different  mental   constitution   and  being  prepared 


THE    GOSPELS    AND    THEIR    ORIGIN  35 

more  easily  to  recognize  certain  portions  of  the  truth 
than  another  apostle  was,  would  make  his  selection 
of  the  incidents  of  the  life  and  teachings  of  Christ  and 
would  have  his  way  of  presenting  the  truth;  and 
another  apostle  would  have  his  way  of  presenting  the 
truth.  And,  while  there  was  an  agreement  with  re- 
gard to  a  great  many  things,  there  was  no  agreement 
as  to  what  they  should  write.  You  find,  in  fact,  with 
regard  to  the  words  of  Christ,  the  reverence  of  the 
disciples  for  the  Master's  words  seems,  many  times, 
to  preserve  exactly  the  same  form  of  words  in  the 
narrative  of  each  of  the  Evangelists,  while,  at  the  same 
time,  the  circumstances,  the  setting,  the  frame-work 
varies  in  many  of  its  particulars — the  one  giving  one 
sort  of  incident  connected  with  the  teachings,  and 
another  giving  another  sort  of  incident  connected  with 
the  teachings,  so  that  one  supplements  the  other. 

There  was  thus  growing  up  all  the  while,  during 
those  twenty  to  forty  years,  in  the  case  of  the  Gospels 
of  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  what  you  may  call  a 
stereotyped  narrative,  a  gradual  paring  down,  remov- 
ing of  what  was  adventitious,  putting  aside  the  things 
that  were  merely  incidental,  selecting  the  things  that 
were  important;  so  that  all  three  of  the  Evangelists 
agreed  in  all  the  main  lines  of  teaching.  In  fact,  there 
is  absolute  verbal  agreement  with  regard  to  a  great 
many  things;  yet,  at  the  same  time,  each  one  has  his 
own  point  of  view,  has  his  own  hearers,  persons  for 
whom  he  is  writing,  persons  whom  he  has  in  mind  as 
the  object  of  his  discourse.  So  we  have  growing  up 
a  sort  of  gospel  or  account  of  the  Saviour's  life  all 
oral  at  first,  which  is  marked  by  the  two  characteristics 


36  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

of  substantial  agreement,  and  yet  a  wonderful  individ- 
uality and  independence. 

The  problem  of  the  origin  of  the  Gospels  is  one  of 
the  most  interesting,  one  of  the  most  subtle,  one  of 
the  most  difficult  in  all  human  history;  and  yet,  after 
all,  I  think  that  these  conclusions  which  I  have  tried 
to  draw  are  manifestly  demonstrable.  They  explain 
the  facts  of  the  case. 

This  oral  basis,  this  extemporary  narrative,  this 
living  account  that  was  handed  frorn  mouth  to  mouth 
was  not  at  first  put  into  writing  at  all;  in  fact,  there 
was  no  disposition  to  write.  The  apostles  had  no  time 
to  write;  they  were  not  used  to  writing.  The  literary 
instinct  was  by  no  means  so  general  then  as  it  is  now. 
As  the  rabbis  reiterated  over  and  over  again  the  same 
things  with  regard  to  the  law,  the  learned  did  not  need 
books,  and  the  common  people  did  not  want  them;  so, 
in  the  case  of  these  New  Testament  accounts,  every 
one  was  contented  for  a  very  long  time  to  have  them 
simply  pass  from  mouth  to  mouth. 

Yet  we  find  that,  little  by  little,  there  came  to  be 
felt  the  need  of  putting  these  accounts  into  writing. 
At  first,  the  apostles  apparently  expected  that  Christ 
was  soon  to  come  and  put  an  end  to  all  things.  This 
might  have  made  it  seem  unnecessary  to  spend  time  in 
writing  documents.  But  we  find  that  Peter,  at  last,  be- 
gins to  speak  of  his  decease ;  and,  as  he  sees  the  time  of 
the  end  approaching,  and  feels  the  needs  of  the  churches 
over  which  he  had  care,  he  says,  *'  I  will  take  care  that 
you  may  have  these  things  in  remembrance."  In  other 
words,  it  seems  as  if  there  were  an  intimation  that 
it  was  his  purpose  to  put  into  permanent  form  the 


THE    GOSPELS    AND    THEIR    ORIGIN  37 

substance  of  his  teaching,  so  that  it  could  subsist  and 
remain  after  he  was  taken  away.  And  Paul,  who,  in 
his  letter  to  the  Thessalonians,  had  at  first  the  surmise 
that  the  coming  of  the  Lord  was  near  at  hand,  after- 
ward recognized  the  fact  that  Christ's  coming  was  to 
take  place  after  his  day ;  and  he  speaks  of  "  having 
fought  the  good  fight,  having  finished  his  course."  He 
is  now  "  ready  to  be  offered,"  and  he  tells  very  plainly 
of  his  expectation  of  approaching  death.  He  was  to 
die  before  the  coming  of  the  Lord. 

It  was  as  the  apostles  were  passing  away  from  the 
scene  of  action,  and  were  no  longer  able  to  give  their 
oral  testimony,  that  they  made  sure  of  a  written  testi- 
mony that  could  be  left  forever  to  the  church  of  Christ. 
So  we  find  the  gradual  growing  up  of  the  Gospels,  and 
what  was  oral  becomes  written. 

It  has  been  thought  by  some,  in  fact  it  is  a  very  early 
tradition,  that  Matthew  wrote  a  Gospel  in  Hebrew.  If 
Matthew  did  write  a  Gospel  in  Hebrew,  which  was 
afterward  translated  into  Greek,  and  the  Hebrew  origi- 
nal was  lost,  it  is  probable  that  this  Hebrew  original, 
containing  the  sayings  of  Jesus,  which  were  the  nucleus 
and  basis  of  our  Matthew,  was  the  earliest  of  all,  and 
may  be  dated  A.  D.  50.  Mark,  you  know,  is  said  to 
have  been  the  interpreter  of  Peter ;  and  Mark's  Gospel 
must  have  been  composed  somewhere  near  the  year  55 
of  our  era,  and  twenty-five  years  at  least  after  the 
death  of  our  Lord.  Matthew's  Greek  Gospel,  as  we 
have  it  now,  comes  a  little  later,  perhaps  in  the  year  58. 

Luke,  you  remember,  at  the  beginning  of  his  Gospel 
speaks  of  certain  attempts  that  have  been  made  by 
others  to  put  down  incidents  in  the  life  of  Christ  and 


38  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

to  compose  a  partial  history;  and  he  expresses  his 
purpose  of  putting  down  in  order  the  things  of  which 
he  has  become  credibly  informed.  He  may  have  in 
mind  the  work  of  Mark  and  of  Matthew,  and  I  put 
the  Gospel  according  to  Luke  in  the  year  59. 

So  we  have  the  synoptic  writers ;  and  by  the  synoptic 
writers  I  mean  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke ;  called  syn- 
optic because,  in  the  early  history  of  the  church,  a 
synopsis  was  made  of  the  three,  the  three  being  so 
parallel  with  one  another  that  you  could  easily  form  a 
single  narrative  by  combining  them  all  together. 

The  synoptic  writers  probably  composed  their  Gos- 
pels between  the  years  55  and  60,  so  that  all  of  the 
three  were  written  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem; and  while  the  oral  Gospels  become  written,  you 
find  that  there  is  no  evidence  whatever  that  any  one 
of  these  Gospels  was  composed  in  view  of  the  others; 
not  one  of  the  Gospels  was  consciously  an  attempt  to 
supplement  another;  not  one  of  them  was  written  for 
the  purpose  of  correcting  what  was  written  in  another ; 
not  one  of  them  was  written  with  the  express  purpose 
of  adapting  the  other  narrative  to  a  new  class  of  hear- 
ers ;  but  it  would  seem  that  each  narrative  was  written 
by  itself,  each  witness  was  independent,  each  gathered 
his  material  in  his  own  way,  each  put  it  down  in  his 
own  form.  Yet,  notwithstanding  this  independence, 
there  is  a  wonderful  harmony :  harmony  as  to  substance 
and  harmony  in  a  great  many  respects  in  verbal  ex- 
pression, between  each  Gospel  and  the  others.  I  speak 
now  in  regard  to  the  first  three  Gospels. 

Then,  in  regard  to  the  Gospel  according  to  John, 
which  differs  so  remarkably  from  all  three  (Matthew, 


THE    GOSPELS   AND    THEIR    ORIGIN  39 

Mark,  and  Luke),  it  is  perfectly  evident  that  John 
wrote  independently.  He  did  not  intend  simply  to 
supplement  what  the  others  had  written,  because  he  in- 
cluded the  account  of  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand ; 
this  as  a  text  to  which  he  might  attach  Jesus'  discourse 
with  regard  to  himself  as  the  Bread  of  Life.  He  did 
not  write  in  ignorance  of  what  was  written  before, 
because  he  does  not  include  the  account  of  the  trans- 
figuration, which  he  certainly  would  have  included  if 
he  had  not  known  what  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke  had 
written. 

So  we  have  the  gradual  growth  of  our  Gospels  from 
the  oral  to  the  written  form,  at  first  in  a  sort  of  oral 
account,  passing  from  mouth  to  mouth,  repeated  with 
very  slight  variations,  as  the  sacred  oracles  of  the  Lord, 
and  existing  in  that  form  from  twenty  to  forty  years ; 
and  after  that  time  put  into  written  form  before  the 
apostles  died.  Then,  after  the  expiration  of  thirty 
years  more,  John  the  Evangelist,  in  Asia  Minor,  writes 
down  his  account  of  the  life  of  Christ  and  adds  many 
things,  together  with  chronological  data,  that  were  not 
given  by  the  three  Evangelists  who  had  written  before. 
So  much  now  with  regard  to  the  problem  of  the  origin 
of  the  Gospels. 

I  want  to  speak  now,  as  the  second  and  concluding 
portion  of  these  remarks,  of  the  characteristics  of  the 
Gospels.  I  have  spoken  of  their  diversity.  This  diver- 
sity is  diversity  in  unity ;  but  let  us  first  get  an  idea  of 
what  this  diversity  is. 

Matthew  first  of  all  is  the  publican,  the  collector  of 
taxes  or  customs.  He  is  a  practised  writer,  just  be- 
cause of  his  profession,   perhaps  the  most  practised 


40  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

writer  of  them  all,  and,  therefore,  perhaps  the  first  and 
the  most  ready  to  enter  upon  this  work  of  committing 
the  gospel  to  writing.  Matthew  puts  down  his  ac- 
count of  the  life  of  Christ  from  his  own  point  of  view 
and  for  a  particular  sort  of  hearers.  And  who  are 
these  hearers,  the  persons  whom  he  has  in  view  as  he 
writes?  Why,  it  is  the  Jews.  He  would  convert  the 
Jews  to  Christ;  and  so  he  speaks  of  Christ  as  the  Son 
of  David  and  the  Son  of  Abraham,  the  heir  to  the  Old 
Testament  promises.  He  speaks  of  Christ  as  the  King 
of  Israel,  who  has  been  foretold  by  the  prophets  of 
old.  He  also  speaks  of  Christ  as  the  suffering  Messiah, 
in  whom  all  the  sacrificial  types  of  the  Old  Testament 
found  their  fulfilment.  Matthew  has  for  his  symbol, 
in  early  Christian  history,  the  sacrificial  bullock.  You 
know  the  four  figures  of  the  cherubim  were  taken  as 
symbols  of  the  Evangelists;  and  of  those  cherubic 
figures,  the  sacrificial  bullock  was  assigned  to  Mat- 
thew, as  indicating  the  fact  that  Matthew  more  than 
all  the  other  Evangelists  sets  forth  Jesus  Christ  as  the 
King  of  Israel,  who  was,  at  the  same  time,  the  Mes- 
siah offered  for  human  sins.  That  is  the  main  char- 
acteristic of  Matthew.  He  speaks  of  Christ  as  the 
sacrificed  Son  of  God.  Now  the  sacrificed  King  of 
Israel  was  the  Old  Testament  Messiah;  so,  you  re- 
member, the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew  begins  with 
the  genealogies,  and  those  genealogies  are  intended 
to  connect  the  New  Testament  with  the  Old. 

Mark  has  in  his  mind  an  entirely  different  class  of 
hearers,  and  who  are  they  ?  Why,  Mark  writes  to  the 
Romans.  Mark  is  the  interpreter  of  Peter;  Mark  has 
in  him  something  of  the  vivid,  vigorous,  picturesque 


THE    GOSPELS    AND    THEIR    ORIGIN  4I 

Spirit  that  belonged  to  Peter.  Mark  is  writing  for  the 
rulers  of  the  world,  for  men  who  have  great  homage 
for  law.  And  so  you  find  that  Mark  represents  Christ 
in  that  aspect  which  was  most  likely  to  impress  the 
minds  of  the  Romans,  as  the  wonder-worker,  the 
worker  of  miracles,  stirring  the  depths  of  men's  hearts 
by  his  demonstrations  of  divine  power;  and  so  the 
symbol  that  has  been  assigned  to  Mark,  in  early  Chris- 
tian archaeology,  is  the  powerful  lion.  Mark  goes 
straight  to  his  mark.  Mark  never  wastes  time  in  detail. 
Mark  is  picturesque  and  incisive ;  and  there  is  a  strength 
and  a  grasp  in  his  Gospel.  Although  the  shortest  of 
them  all,  it  is  in  some  respects  the  most  vigorous  and 
powerful  of  them  all. 

Luke,  in  the  third  place,  writes,  not  for  the  Jews 
nor  for  the  Romans,  but  for  the  Greeks.  Luke  is  the 
physician.  Luke  is  the  man  of  scientific  spirit.  It  is 
remarkable  that  every  description  of  disease  given  us 
by  Luke  in  his  Gospel  is  just  such  as  would  naturally 
proceed  from  the  brain  and  pen  of  a  physician.  Luke 
is  probably  the  most  learned  of  all  the  Evangelists.  He 
writes  with  an  elaborateness  and  beauty  of  Greek  style. 
Luke's  preface  is  more  like  classical  Greek  than  any 
other  Greek  we  find  in  the  New  Testament.  Now, 
Luke,  writing  for  the  Greeks,  with  his  breadth  of 
mind  and  his  sense  of  human  need,  speaks  of  Christ  as 
the  friend  of  humanity,  the  humane  Saviour.  You 
find  that  those  wonderful  parables  of  the  Prodigal  Son 
and  the  Lost  Piece  of  Money,  and  many  others  of  a 
similar  sort,  are  found  in  Luke,  and  not  in  the  other 
Evangelists.  Luke  is  said  to  have  been  the  interpreter 
or  representative  of  Paul,  just  as  Mark  was  the  repre- 


42  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

sentative  or  interpreter  of  Peter;  and  the  image  or 
symbol  of  Luke,  in  Christian  archaeology,  has  been  the 
human  form.  You  know  that  among  the  cherubic 
figures — the  figures  that  constitute  the  cherubim — 
there  was  the  bullock  which  answered  to  Matthew,  the 
lion  which  answered  to  Mark,  the  eagle  which  answered 
to  John,  and  then  the  man  which  answered  to  Luke ;  so 
that  we  have  in  these  cherubic  figures  the  symbols  of  all 
four  of  the  Evangelists. 

And  now,  finally,  you  have  John.  John  writes  not  for 
Jews,  not  for  Romans,  not  for  Greeks;  he  covers  the 
whole  world  and  writes  for  all  men ;  for,  with  his  loving 
and  ardent  spirit,  his  fiery  nature,  and  yet  his  habit  of 
introspection,  he  apprehends,  as  none  other  of  the 
Evangelists  do,  the  greatness  and  glory  of  Christ's 
divine  nature.  So  he  takes  us  back  to  the  very  be- 
ginning, before  all  time,  and  speaks  of  the  Word  which 
was  with  God,  and  was  God.  John  gives  us  the  most 
beautiful  exhibition  of  the  lofty,  the  divine  element  in 
Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord;  so  that  the  symbol  that  has 
been  assigned  to  John  is  the  soaring  eagle  that  flies  to 
the  heights  of  heaven,  while  its  eye  pierces  with  its 
vision  to  the  very  depths  of  the  sea. 

These  are  the  general  characteristics  of  the  Evan- 
gelists. Each  one  had  his  own  nature,  each  one  had 
his  own  point  of  view,  each  one  had  his  own  audience, 
so  to  speak;  and  they  give  us  a  picture  of  the  life  of 
Christ  that  we  never  could  get  from  any  single  one 
alone.  Here,  then,  there  is  diversity ;  but  let  me  bring 
you  back  again  to  the  idea  of  the  unity  in  diversity. 
That  is  just  as  wonderful  as  the  diversity  itself.  Jesus 
was  many-sided.    You  know  it  has  been  said  of  Shake- 


THE    GOSPELS    AND    THEIR    ORIGIN  43 

speare  that  he  was  myriad-minded.  If  Shakespeare 
could  be  called  myriad-minded,  what  epithet  could  be 
applied  to  Christ  ?  Why,  there  are  no  ends  or  sides  to 
Christ's  nature.  Human  intellect  cannot  perceive  the 
whole  of  him  at  once.  You  cannot  possibly  see  the 
two  poles,  even  of  a  globe,  at  one  time.  You  must 
turn  one  pole  toward  you  first,  and  then  remove  that 
from  sight,  in  order  that  you  may  see  the  other.  So  it 
was  utterly  impossible  for  any  single  human  being  to 
see  the  whole  of  Christ.  The  only  way  in  which  the 
world  could  be  got  to  look  upon  Christ,  in  his  true  light, 
was  by  getting  a  number  to  look  at  him  from  different 
sides,  and  then  to  combine  their  stories. 

It  is  said  that  in  Paris  there  is  a  sculptor  who  makes 
statues  and  busts  of  celebrated  men,  and  his  method  of 
making  them  is  this :  He  has  a  circular  apartment, 
around  the  circumference  of  which  a  dozen  photo- 
graphic cameras  are  stationed,  all  pointing  toward  the 
center.  He  has  the  subject,  of  whom  he  is  to  make 
the  statue  or  bust,  sit  or  stand  in  the  center  of  the 
apartment;  the  lights  are  all  properly  arranged,  and  at 
a  certain  moment  the  curtain  is  removed  from  each 
one  of  the  cameras.  A  dozen  different  pictures  from  a 
dozen  different  points  of  view  are  taken  at  the  same 
instant,  and  the  sculptor  makes  up  his  statue  or  his  bust 
from  all  these  pictures  combined;  so  that  the  result  is 
true  to  the  original,  ■  as  a  single  view  never  could 
make  it. 

Now,  these  four  Evangelists  have  stationed  their 
photographic  cameras  on  four  different  sides  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  they  have  taken  their  pictures 
from  different  points  of  view;  and,  in  order  properly 


44  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

to  understand  what  Christ  was,  we  must,  from  all 
these  four  narratives,  construct  a  solid  and  symmet- 
rical structure  of  his  life.  If  this  be  true,  a  great  deal 
of  light  is  thrown  upon  the  problem,  which  to  some  has 
seemed  almost  insoluble,  how  it  is  that  the  first  three 
Evangelists  can  give  us  such  a  different  view  from  that 
which  is  given  us  in  the  Gospel  according  to  John. 
Why,  it  is  the  most  natural  thing  in  the  world.  Cicero 
says,  "  The  eye  sees  only  that  which  it  brings  with  it 
the  power  of  seeing."  Every  man  sees  another  out  of 
his  own  eye,  and  gets  a  view  of  that  other  that  no  other 
person  ever  does  get;  and  so  the  life  of  Christ  appeared 
from  different  points  of  view  to  different  persons. 

Those  of  you  who  have  been  abroad,  those  of  you 
who  have  visited  the  picture-galleries  of  Europe,  know 
very  well  that  there  is  no  subject  of  which  the  rep- 
resentations are  so  astonishingly  various  as  those  of 
Venice.  The  pictures  of  Venice,  how  wonderfully 
they  differ!  There  are  the  pictures  of  Canaletto,  in 
which  the  drawing  is  perfect.  It  is  as  exact  as  a  pho- 
tograph. You  almost  seem  to  be  put  back  into  one  of 
the  gondolas  on  the  Venetian  canals.  Every  line  is 
perfectly  distinct.  But  side  by  side  with  this  picture, 
by  Canaletto,  there  is  a  picture  of  Venice  by  Turner. 
What  an  astonishing  difference  there  is!  Here  you 
have  not  so  much  clearness  of  outline  as  you  have  won- 
derful light  and  shade.  There  is  a  roseate  glow  over 
the  whole  picture  that  is  marvelous.  It  seems  as  if  Ven- 
ice were  transfigured,  almost  as  if  it  were  the  New  Je- 
rusalem; and  yet  Turner  painted  Venice  just  as  truly 
as  Canaletto  did.  So,  John  painted  Christ  just  as  truly 
as  Matthew,  or  Mark,  or  Luke  ever  painted  him.    John 


THE    GOSPELS    AND    THEIR    ORIGIN  45 

had  the  seeing  eye,  John  had  the  glowing  heart,  John 
had  the  deep  love  that  enabled  him  to  see  in  his  Lord 
the  heavenly  and  the  divine. 

We  have  in  ancient  literature  also  a  remarkable  il- 
lustration. Some  have  wondered  whether  there  ever 
could  have  been  such  a  man  as  Socrates,  simply  because 
we  have  two  accounts  of  him — the  one  by  Plato  and 
the  other  by  Xenophon — which  widely  differ.  Shall 
we  say  that  there  never  was  such  a  man  as  Socrates, 
simply  because  these  two  speak  of  him  so  differently? 
Shall  we  say  that  there  was  no  such  a  personage  as 
Jesus  Christ,  simply  because  John  speaks  of  him  so 
differently  from  the  first  three  Evangelists?  There  is 
no  contradiction  at  all  between  them.  It  is  simply  that 
each  one  sees  that  which  he  brings  with  him  the  power 
of  seeing;  in  these  separate  portraits  we  have,  with  all 
these  diversities,  a  wonderful  harmony  of  personality. 
This  composite  picture  is  the  representation  of  a  ma- 
jestic person,  such  as  never  lived  anywhere  else  upon 
the  earth.  There  is  no  representation  of  any  human 
being  that  can  compare  with  this  representation  of 
Jesus.  The  separate  portraits  only  differ  in  the  aspect 
from  which  they  regard  him.  How  wonderful  it  is 
that  this  harmony  exists,  a  harmony  that  shows  there 
is  no  collusion  between  them,  and  which  makes  the  tes- 
timony of  one  witness  confirm  that  of  the  others.  In 
the  courts  of  law  the  testimony  of  one  may  be  some- 
thing; but  if  you  get  the  testimony  of  another,  side  by 
side  with  his,  it  is  plain  that  one  and  one  do  not  simply 
make  two,  but  that  one  plus  one  makes  four.  So  these 
two  Evangelists,  Matthew  and  Mark,  plus  the  two 
Evangelists  Luke  and  John,  do  not  make  simply  four. 


46  THE   BOOKS   OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Two  plus  two  do  not  equal  four  here;  they  make  six- 
teen. So  we  have  a  gospel  that  grew  up  in  a  wonder- 
ful way  into  solidity  and  symmetry,  and  is  given  to  us 
now  only  after  the  most  complete  witness  to  its  truth 
by  combined  apostolic  authority. 

In  conclusion,  let  me  say  that  these  Gospels  are 
not,  as  some  have  supposed,  a  jotting  down  of  mere 
tradition.  What  do  you  mean  by  tradition?  Why, 
we  mean  by  tradition  that  which  is  handed  down 
after  the  death  of  the  witnesses.  A  thing  does  not 
become  tradition  until  the  witnesses  are  dead.  Now, 
were  these  things  written  long  after  the  witnesses 
were  dead,  so  that  we  can  say  that  we  have  simply 
tradition  put  down  here?  That  is  the  doctrine  of 
Robert  Elsmere.  What  a  mistake  it  is !  These  things 
were  written  down  while  the  witnesses  were  yet 
living.  The  men  who  wrote  them,  in  more  than  one 
case,  had  seen  the  Lord  Jesus;  and  they  put  down 
what  they  knew  before  they  passed  away  from  the 
scene  of  action.  That  is  not  tradition.  That  is  simply 
a  settled  statement  upon  which  they  have  agreed,  after 
pondering  it  over  in  their  minds,  after  throwing  out 
the  things  that  were  simply  incidental  and  of  no  ac- 
count, after  concluding  what  was  the  truth,  and  what 
was  the  exact  way  in  which  they  ought  to  express  it. 

There  is  another  thing  that  is  very  remarkable,  and 
that  is  this,  that  the  apostles,  by  teaching,  learned  how 
to  tell  their  story.  During  these  twenty  to  forty  years 
in  which  the  gospel  existed  simply  in  an  oral  form,  and 
was  repeated  day  by  day  to  new  hearers,  the  apostles 
learned  how  to  tell  their  story  in  exact  accordance  with 
the  facts; 'and  speakers  and  hearers  mutually  helped 


THE   GOSPELS   AND    THEIR   ORIGIN  47 

and  corrected  one  another.  At  last  the  whole  narra- 
tive, as  it  was  exhibited  in  the  Gospels,  came  to  be  the 
settled  and  permanent  testimony  of  the  apostles;  not 
something  taken  up  by  chance,  not  something  taken  by 
a  stenographer  as  it  happened  to  be  uttered,  but  the  set- 
tied  story  upon  which  they  had  concluded  as  to  sub- 
stance and  as  to  expression,  after  from  twenty  to  forty 
years  of  a  continuous  utterance,  for  which  they  were 
willing  to  lay  down  their  lives.  So  we  have  things 
that  are  absolutely  certain  to  us,  because  they  were  not 
the  utterances  of  simply  temporary  interpreters,  but 
were  the  settled  convictions  and  beliefs  of  the  apostolic 
witnesses.  This,  then,  is  the  origin  of  the  Gospels, 
and  these  are  their  main  characteristics. 


THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  MATTHEW 

The  stream  that  flowed  from  the  Garden  of  Eden,  we 
are  told,  was  parted  into  four  heads ;  and  so  the  water 
of  Hfe  comes  to  us  through  four  Gospel  channels.  It 
is  the  first  of  these,  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew, 
the  Gospel  of  sacrifice,  to  which  I  call  your  attention 
to-day. 

The  writer  of  this  Gospel  is  Matthew.    Matthew  was 

^  not  his  original  name.  His  name  was  Levi,  instead. 
In  Mark  and  Luke  no  other  name  is  given  to  him  but 
this.     It  seems  to  have  been  a  case  of  change  of  name 

^at  a  particular  epoch  in  his  life;  just  as  Saul,  when  he 
was  converted  to  Christ,  changed  his  name  to  Paul; 

^and  just  as  Simon,  when  he  made  his  great  confession, 
became  Peter;  and  so  a  change  of  heart,  a  change  of 
purpose,  a  change  of  life  was  indicated  that  made  him 
a  new  man.  It  would  seem  as  if  Levi's  following 
Christ  was  the  time  when  his  name  too  was  changed, 

y  and  Levi  became  Matthew.    Levi  would  signify  ''  serv- 

/  ant  of  the  Lord  " ;  Matthew  would  signify  ''  the  Lord's 
free  man." 

Levi  was  a  publican ;  and  by  publican,  in  those  days, 
was  meant  not  innkeeper,  but  rather  receiver  of  public 
X  taxes,  a  tax-gatherer.  He  was  a  tax-gatherer  under 
Herod  Antipas.  Something  of  contempt  attached  itself 
to  this  calling  of  a  tax-gatherer,  at  least  under  the  cir- 
cumstances under  which  Matthew  attempted  it.  As 
tax-gatherer  he  had  probably  acquired  a  large  knowl- 

48 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING   TO    MATTHEW  49 

edge  of  human  nature.  He  had  acquired  accurate 
business  habits,  and,  more  than  that,  I  suppose  we  may 
say  that  he  had  acquired  practice  in  writing;  so  it  is 
possible  that  Matthew  was  the  earliest  of  those  who 
composed  a  Gospel;  and  it  is  quite  possible  that  the 
logical  and  philosophical  grouping  of  his  Gospel  may 
evince  the  grasp  and  skill  which  he  had  acquired. 

Matthew  was  a  humble  man.  He  calls  himself  Mat- 
thew the  Publican;  as  if  always  to  remember  the  low 
degree  from  which  he  had  sprung;  as  if  to  call  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  it  was  a  strange  and  wonderful 
thing  that  the  Lord  had  ever  set  his  love  upon  him.  He 
not  only  calls  himself  so,  but  he  avoids  all  mention  of 
any  particular  qualification  in  him  for  his  work.  Mat- 
thew was  probably  a  man  of  means.  Luke  tells  us  that, 
after  he  was  called  to  be  a  disciple,  he  made  a  great 
feast  to  Jesus ;  but  Matthew  himself  makes  no  mention 
of  it. 

Matthew  is  distinguished  by  what  we  call  self-efface- 
ment. He  ignores  himself  continually.  He  makes  as 
little  mention  of  himself  as  John  does,  even  less  than 
John  does;  for,  although  John  does  not  mention  his 
own  name,  John  does  speak  of  a  certain  disciple  whom 
Jesus  loved  that  can  be  no  other  than  John.  After  the 
first  calling  of  Matthew,  and  the  relating  of  that 
incident  by  which  he  became  a  disciple  of  Jesus,  there 
is  absolutely  no  mention  of  Matthew,  except  his  mere 
name  in  the  list  of  the  apostles;  and  thus  we  get  the 
impression  that  he  is  a  man  of  great  humility,  that  he 
merges  himself  in  Christ,  and  thinks  there  is  nothing 
worthy  to  be  mentioned  of  himself. 

We  know  little  about  Matthew  during  our  Saviour's 

D 


50  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

life,  and  we  know  almost  next  to  nothing  of  his  work 
after  the  Saviour's  death.  Tradition  says  he  went  to 
Ethiopia,  preached  the  gospel  there,  and  suffered  mar- 
tyrdom, being  slain  while  engaged  in  prayer.  Even 
this  tradition  is  denied  by  some,  especially  by  Clement 
of  Alexandria;  so  we  may  say  that  we  know  almost 
nothing  about  Matthew,  except  that  he  was  a  publican, 
a  humble  man,  the  author  of  this  Gospel. 

Yet  this  humble  disciple  of  Christ,  this  apostle  who 
never  cared  to  have  his  own  name  mentioned,  has 
become  the  first  of  the  Evangelists ;  just  as  that  Mary, 
from  whom  Christ  cast  out  seven  demons,  was  the 
first  to  announce  the  gospel  of  the  resurrection  to  the 
apostles.  It  is  a  blessed  thought  to  me  that  the  names 
of  these  apostles,  who  so  merged  themselves  in  Christ 
and  his  kingdom  as  to  be  lost  sight  of  entirely,  the 
names  of  these  twelve  apostles,  every  one,  are  to  be 
written  on  the  foundation-stones  of  the  New  Jerusa- 
lem; so  that,  although  they  got  no  honor  upon  the 
earth,  they  will  get  the  honor  that  comes  from  God 
only. 

Now  in  regard  to  the  language  in  which  this  Gospel 
is  written.  There  is  a  dispute  in  regard  to  this  matter, 
as  to  whether  the  original  writing  of  it  was  in  Hebrew 
or  in  Greek.  Here  we  come  to  a  problem  of  very  great 
interest.  I  cannot  go  into  it  at  length.  I  can  only  in- 
dicate to  you  the  nature  of  it.  It  is  the  unanimous 
testimony  of  the  early  church  that  Matthew  wrote 
originally  in  Hebrew,  "  wrote  a  Gospel  in  the  Hebrew 
language  which  every  one  interpreted,"  i.  e.,  I  suppose, 
every  one  translated  into  Greek,  "  as  he  was  able  to  " ; 
and   it   is   of   additional    interest   that,    at   the   time 


THE    GOSPEL   ACCORDING    TO    MATTHEW  5 1 

Matthew  wrote,  there  was  already  existing  a  Greek 
translation,  for  the  word  "  interpreted  "  is  a  Greek 
word,  and  intimates  that  people  heretofore  interpreted 
the  Gospel  as  they  were  able;  but,  now  that  the  Greek 
translation  existed,  there  was  no  need  any  longer  of 
this  individual  interpretation. 

Those  who  hold  this  view  are  themselves  divided 
into  two  different  parties.  One  of  them  holds  that  the 
original  Gospel,  written  by  Matthew  in  Hebrew,  was 
very  brief,  much  briefer  than  our  present  Gospel ;  and 
that,  subsequently,  with  the  aid  of  the  oral  tradition 
which  then  existed,  Matthew  himself  wrote  a  Greek 
translation,  enlarging  it  as  he  wrote,  so  that  our 
present  Greek  Gospel  is  a  translation  of  the  briefer 
original  Gospel  written  by  Matthew  himself.  Those 
who  hold  this  view  think  that  the  earlier  Hebrew 
Gospel  was  corrupted,  and  that  it  became  the  Apocry- 
phal book  which  is  entitled  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews. 

There  is  a  difficulty  connected  with  this  hypothesis 
that  the  Gospel  was  originally  written  in  Hebrew, 
which  makes  it  doubtful  whether  we  ought  to  accept 
it,  even  although  we  have  in  its  favor  the  almost  unani- 
mous tradition  of  the  early  church.  The  difficulty  is 
just  this:  Whenever  Matthew,  in  his  Greek  Gospel, 
quotes  from  the  Old  Testament,  in  giving  us  the  words 
of  Christ,  he  quotes  not  from  the  Hebrew,  but  from  the 
Greek;  and  it  would  seem  very  strange,  if  he  were  wri- 
ting a  Hebrew  Gospel,  that  he  should  not  quote  from 
the  original  Hebrew  instead.  Again,  when  Matthew 
gives  us  the  words  of  Christ,  he  gives  us  almost  always 
the  same  words  which  we  find  in  the  other  synoptic 
Gospels,  gives  us  the  words  of  Christ  very  much  as 


52  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

they  are  given  us  by  Mark  and  by  Luke.  This  would 
seem  very  strange,  if  the  Gospel  which  we  have  now 
was  translated  from  an  original  Hebrew  Gospel. 

We  cannot  understand  this  argument  fully,  unless 
we  remember  that,  in  those  days,  the  art  of  translation 
had  not  reached  the  perfection  which  it  reaches  now. 
In  our  day,  when  a  man  who  has  any  scholarship  at  all 
attempts  a  translation  from  Greek  into  English,  he 
does  not  translate  word  for  word;  he  does  not  simply 
transfer  the  words  of  the  Greek  into  the  words  of  the 
English,  but  he  puts  the  thought  of  the  original  into 
English  thought,  and  into  English  idioms.  But  in 
those  days  the  art  of  translation  was  by  no  means  per- 
fected, and  whatever  translation  there  was,  was  really 
transference  instead  of  translation;  and  if  our  present 
Greek  version  were  the  translation  of  an  original  He- 
brew, we  should  expect  to  find  the  Hebrew  idioms  con- 
tinually recurrent;  we  should  find  a  great  difference  in 
the  words  of  Christ  as  they  appear  in  our  Gospel  ac- 
cording to  Matthew,  and  the  words  of  Christ  as  they 
appear  in  the  Gospels  according  to  Mark  and  Luke. 
There  is,  however,  no  such  difference,  so  that  the  inter- 
nal evidence,  in  spite  of  this  external  evidence  from  the 
early  church  Fathers,  seems  to  point  to  an  original 
Greek  Gospel  rather  than  an  original  Hebrew  Gospel. 
The  explanation  of  Westcott  is  that  Matthew  himself 
translated  the  Hebrew  Gospel  into  Greek;  that,  when  he 
came  to  those  portions  that  were  common  to  him  and 
to  Mark  and  Luke,  he  took  the  Greek  oral  tradition 
that  was  current,  side  by  side  with  the  Hebrew  tradi- 
tion, and  substituted  that  for  what  he  had  originally 
written  in  the  Hebrew. 


THE    GOSPEL   ACCORDING    TO    MATTHEW  53 

This  is  a  possible  solution  of  the  difficulty,  and  I  am 
still  inclined  to  believe  there  was  an  original  Hebrew 
Gospel,  perhaps  briefer  than  our  present  Gospel  accord- 
ing to  Matthew,  which  was  subsequently  translated  by 
Matthew  himself,  and,  in  the  translation,  was  enlarged. 
The  Fathers  seem  with  one  accord  to  have  accepted 
this  view,  and  this  unanimous  assent  of  the  early  church 
cannot  rest  upon  the  testimony  of  that  single  man 
Papias,  for  Papias,  we  know,  was  not  overcritical. 
They  must  have  had  other  and  better  evidence. 

The  truth  is  that,  in  Palestine,  at  the  time  of  Christ, 
there  were  two  languages  spoken.  Palestine  was  a 
bilingual  country.  The  Aramaic,  or  corrupted  Hebrew, 
was  the  language  of  the  common  people,  because  that 
was  the  language  of  the  original  Scriptures.  On  the 
other  hand,  Greek  was  the  literary  language,  and  every 
one  learned  something  of  Greek.  Every  man  of  affairs, 
every  business  man  had  to  know  something  of  Greek. 
There  is  a  similar  state  of  things  In  Wales  in  our  own 
day.  The  language  of  the  people  In  Wales,  of  course, 
is  Welsh;  and  as  a  Welshman,  a  Welsh  carpenter, 
once  said :  "  I  learned  English  In  school,  and  I  am  per- 
fectly familiar  with  English,  but  I  never  talk  a  word  of 
English  except  when  I  am  speaking  with  English  peo- 
ple. In  my  family  and  in  my  business  In  the  village, 
and,  in  fact,  almost  universally,  I  speak  nothing  but 
Welsh.    I  read  English,  but  I  speak  Welsh." 

I  suppose  that  In  Palestine,  at  the  time  of  Christ,  the 
people  spoke  Aramaic  and  they  read  Greek ;  and,  when 
it  came  to  putting  the  gospel  into  permanent  and 
written  form,  It  was  naturally  the  Greek,  the  literary 
language.  Into  which  the  Gospels  were  put,  rather  than 


54  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

into  the  Hebrew  or  Aramaic,  which  was  the  language 
commonly  spoken.  I  suppose  it  is  perfectly  certain  that 
our  Lord  used  the  Greek  language  in  his  replies  to 
Pilate,  the  Roman  governor ;  but  I  suppose  it  is  equally 
true  that,  in  prayer,  in  his  utterances  from  the  cross, 
he  used  the  Aramaic,  the  language  of  the  common 
people. 

It  is  a  very  curious  thing  in  regard  to  Germans  that 
come  to  our  country,  that  they  may  use  nothing  but 
English  in  their  business,  speak  English  every  day,  but, 
as  Christians,  they  never  pray  except  in  German,  their 
mother  tongue;  and,  when  they  come  to  die,  their  last 
words  are  spoken  in  German,  and  not  in  English. 

So  it  was  in  Palestine.  The  Jewish  language,  the 
language  of  the  heart,  the  sacred  language,  was  Ara- 
maic or  Hebrew;  but  the  literary  language,  the  lan- 
guage of  the  books,  was  Greek.  So  you  find  that 
James,  one  of  the  earliest  Epistles  written,  was  written 
in  Greek,  although  James  was  a  Hebrew.  And  so  you 
find  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  written  to  Jewish 
Christians  most  of  all,  is  written  in  Greek,  and  betrays 
no  signs  of  an  original  Hebrew.  I  think  it  is  not  only 
perfectly  natural,  but  it  is  probably  a  conclusion  war- 
ranted by  the  circumstances,  that  our  Greek  Gospel  is 
now  what  it  was  when  it  left  the  hands  of  Matthew,  the 
apostle. 

Another  question  arises  with  regard  to  the  date  at 
which  this  Gospel  was  written.  I  have  concluded  that 
the  most  probable  date  is  between  the  years  55  and  60, 
or,  if  we  must  be  more  definite,  about  A.  D.  58,  twelve 
years  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 

We   have   the   testimony   of   Irenaeus,    one    of   the 


THE    GOSPEL    ACCORDING    TO    MATTHEW  55 

church  Fathers,  that  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew 
was  written  while  the  apostles  Peter  and  Paul  were 
preaching  at  Rome,  i.  e.,  just  before  their  martyrdom; 
and  there  is  a  great  deal  in  the  Gospel  itself  which  in- 
dicates that  it  must  have  been  written  before  the  time 
of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  There  is  no  hint,  for 
example,  that  Jerusalem  had  been  destroyed,  as  there 
almost  certainly  would  have  been  if  the  holy  city  had 
been  overthrown;  and  while  our  Saviour's  words  in 
regard  to  the  flight  of  Christians,  on  account  of  the 
approaching  calamity,  are  still  retained  in  the  Gospel, 
there  is  no  sort  of  indication  that  their  flight  had  al- 
ready taken  place.  When  our  Saviour's  discourse  is 
given,  in  which  the  prophecy  of  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  and  the  end  of  the  world  merge  into  one 
another,  there  is  no  dividing  line  drawn,  as  there  very 
naturally  would  be  if  a  part  of  that  prophecy  had 
already  been  fulfilled.  And  when  it  is  said,  "  This 
generation  shall  not  pass  until  all  these  things  be  ful- 
filled," it  would  certainly  seem  that,  if  that  prophecy 
had  been  fulfilled  already,  there  would  have  been  some 
mark  or  indication  that  the  Lord's  words  had  been 
verified. 

Yet  there  are  those  who,  simply  because  these 
prophecies  are  so  clear  and  unmistakable,  are  inclined 
to  doubt  whether  this  Gospel  was  written  before  the 
events  had  taken  place.  Of  course  these  difficulties  all 
arise  from  a  wrong  view  of  inspiration.  They  fancy 
that  there  was  no  such  thing  as  prediction,  that  man 
cannot  be  inspired  by  God  to  prophesy  the  future.  If 
that  be  true,  then  the  Gospel  must  have  been  written 
after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  rather  than  before; 


56  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

but  to  US  who  believe  that  God  knows  from  the  begin- 
ning, and  that  God  prophesied  and  predicted  what  was 
to  happen,  such  an  argument  has  no  weight;  in  fact, 
these  words  of  objection  are  fraught  with  other  difficul- 
ties just  as  serious,  for  Christ  himself  declared  these 
things.  Christ  himself  declared  that  the  temple  was  to 
be  destroyed,  and  that,  in  three  days,  it  would  be  raised 
again. 

There  was  a  foretelling  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem long  before  the  apostolic  testimony.  The  predic- 
tions of  the  apostles  were  only  an  echo  of  the  prophecy 
of  Daniel  that  had  been  spoken  four  or  five  hundred 
years  before,  viz.,  "  The  people  of  the  Prince  shall  come 
and  destroy  the  city  and  the  sanctuary  " ;  so  we  cannot 
get  rid  of  the  element  of  prediction  that  is  there. 
Putting  the  Gospel  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
cannot  help  the  matter  at  all. 

In  fact,  we  find  that  it  must  have  been  before  that 
event.  There  is  a  limit  as  to  the  point  of  time  later 
than  which  the  Gospel  cannot  have  been  written.  It 
must  have  come  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem; 
and  yet  there  is  a  limit  on  the  other  side.  It  cannot  be 
so  very  much  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  You 
remember  that,  in  Matthew's  Gospel,  there  is  the  story 
about  the  bribing  of  the  soldiers  who  had  watched  at 
the  tomb  of  Jesus.  They  were  bribed  to  say  that  the 
disciples  had  come  and  stolen  away  the  body  of  Jesus ; 
and  Matthew  adds :  "  And  this  saying  is  commonly 
reported  among  the  Jews  until  this  day."  He  could 
not  have  put  in  these  words  unless  a  considerable  in- 
terval of  time  had  elapsed  since  the  resurrection  of 
Christ.    The  time  during  which  the  Gospel  could  have 


THE    GOSPEL    ACCORDING    TO    MATTHEW  57 

been  composed  must  therefore  be  narrowed  down  to 
a  space  somewhere  between  the  years  50  and  60,  or 
even  between  55  and  60,  when  there  was  yet  time  to 
warn  Christ's  disciples  of  the  impending  destruction 
of  the  sacred  city.  Let  us  tentatively  call  the  date 
A.  D.  58. 

Now,  something  with  regard  to  the  object  of  the 
Gospel.  Why  was  it  that  Matthew  wrote?  What  has 
been  said  with  regard  to  the  language,  and  with  re- 
gard to  the  date,  may  help  us  in  determining  the  ques- 
tion why  Matthew  wrote  his  Gospel.  What  was  the 
main  object  he  had  in  view?  You  can  see  that,  if  the 
Gospel  was  written  at  the  time  I  suppose,  there  was 
already  the  shadow  of  approaching  destruction  and 
desolation  gathering  about  the  "  holy  city."  Those 
who  had  been  accustomed  to  go  into  the  temple  to 
worship  were  now  about  to  be  cast  out  from  the  tem- 
ple ;  many  among  those  Jewish  Christians  were  tempted 
to  question  whether  they  would  not  be  subject  to  a 
vast  and  irreparable  loss.  In  view  of  this  approaching 
calamity  it  was  desirable  that  the  Christian  heart 
should  be  strengthened.  In  view  of  the  scattering  of 
the  Jewish  people  it  was  desirable  that  the  Gospel 
should  be  put  into  permanent  and  written  form,  as  it 
never  had  been  before ;  and,  therefore,  Matthew  began 
to  write. 

There  were  two  things  which  he  might  do  to 
strengthen  Christian  hearts,  and  to  prepare  them  for 
the  times  of  suffering  and  trouble  before  them;  and 
the  first  of  them  was  to  show  them  that  this  Saviour, 
in  whom  they  had  believed,  was  an  Almighty  Saviour, 


58  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

that  he  was  the  King  of  Israel,  that  he  was  the  promised 
Messiah;  and  it  is  to  this  point  that  Matthew  first 
directs  his  attention. 

He  gives  us  historical  proof  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is 
the  King  of  Israel ;  he  therefore  begins  with  the  gene- 
alogies, and  proves  from  public  records  that  Jesus  is 
the  lineal  descendant  of  David  and  Abraham,  the  son 
of  David  and  the  son  of  Abraham,  and  that  he  is  heir 
to  all  the  promises  that  were  made  to  the  fathers.  He 
is  of  the  line  of  the  kings ;  for  the  genealogy  given  us 
in  Matthew,  I  think,  is  the  royal  genealogy ;  it  is  the  line 
of  Jewish  kings ;  and  Matthew  aims  to  show  that  Jesus 
is  heir  to  the  throne  of  David  and  to  the  hereditary 
blessing  of  Abraham.  This  proof  that  Jesus,  the  car- 
penter, was  the  appointed  and  foretold  King  of  Israel, 
would  tend  to  strengthen  the  heart  of  every  Jewish 
Christian,  and  make  him  stand  by  Christ,  no  matter 
what  trial  and  trouble  might  come. 

But  there  was  another  thing  that  Matthew  had  in 
mind,  and  this  brings  into  view  the  essential  purpose 
of  his  Gospel.  You  know  that,  in  the  Old  Testament, 
there  were  prophecies  of  two  sorts  with  regard  to 
Christ.  There  had  been  the  prophecy  that  Jesus  should 
be  the  King  of  Israel,  and  there  should  arise  one  who 
should  be  the  heir  of  David's  throne,  who  should  have 
power  and  glory  and  sovereignty.  One  class  of  pre- 
dictions was  of  this  sort.  Then,  there  had  been 
another  sort  of  prophecy,  which  the  Jews  had  never 
been  able  to  combine  with  the' first,  viz.,  that  there  was 
to  be  a  suffering  Messiah.  The  natural  hopes  and  feel- 
ings of  the  people  had  clustered  about  the  first  class  of 
prophecies ;  but  the  second  class  of  prophecies  they  had 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING    TO    MATTHEW  59 

almost  entirely  ignored.  So  we  find,  in  the  Jewish 
people,  a  wide-spread  expectation  of  a  deliverer,  a  king 
who  is  to  come  in  power  and  great  glory;  but  as  for 
believing  that  that  king  was  also  to  be  the  Messiah 
who  was  to  suffer  and  die,  that  thought  they  never  per- 
mitted to  enter  into  their  minds. 

Now,  it  is  Matthew's  purpose  to  show  that  the  two 
sorts  of  predictions  related  to  one  single  person;  that 
this  promised  King  of  Israel  was  the  same  individual 
as  he  who  was  to  suffer  for  the  sins  of  men.  In  other 
words,  the  promised  son  of  David  and  son  of  Abraham 
was  also  the  suffering  Messiah;  the  High  Priest  of 
God's  people  was  to  reconcile  Israel  by  sacrificing  him- 
self. The  Gospel  according  to  Matthew  shows  that 
this  King  of  Israel  has  suffered  and  died  for  man ;  has 
accomplished  his  work  of  atonement;  and,  in  spite  of 
his  low  origin,  and  in  spite  of  his  humiliation  and 
death,  the  Christian  must  look  to  him  as  the  appointed 
Saviour  of  the  world. 

If  you  look  into  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew, 
and  read  it  through  with  this  in  mind,  you  will  get 
an  entirely  new  view  of  its  meaning.  It  is  the  Gospel 
of  rejection,  and  the  Gospel  according  to  Luke  is  the 
Gospel  of  acceptance.  People  wonder,  in  Luke,  at  the 
gracious  words  that  proceed  out  of  the  Saviour's  mouth. 
That  side,  that  aspect  of  the  Saviour,  comes  into  view ; 
but  in  Matthew  there  is  one  long  undertone  of  mourn- 
ing, one  long  undertone  of  sorrow.  All  through  the  ^ 
Gospel  of  Matthew  Jesus  is  represented  as  rejected  of 
men. 

Mary  is   rejected   and  cast  out  at   the  beginning,  j 
Herod  pursues  the  young  child.    Joseph  has  to  flee  into 


'  6o  THE    BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Egypt,  from  the  wrath  of  the  king.  When  he  comes 
back  he  cannot  go  to  the  native  place  of  Jesus,  but  has 
to  withdraw  to  Nazareth.  Jesus  is  driven  from  place 
to  place,  until  at  last  he  goes  to  his  crucifixion.  You 
find  that  there  is  a  representation  of  the  crucifixion,  of 
the  sorrowful  sacrifice,  as  there  is  not  in  any  of  the 
other  Evangelists. 

The  Sanhedrin,  the  appointed  authorities  of  the  Jews, 
**~^  rejected  Christ.  He  is  cast  out  by  his  own  people  in 
Galilee ;  and,  at  last,  when  Pilate  crucified  him,  he  says, 
"  This  is  Jesus,  the  King  of  the  Jews."  In  other  words, 
the  king  is  a  rejected  king.  The  promised  King  is  also 
the  suffering  Messiah ;  and  the  deepest  note  of  sorrow 
and  sacrifice  is  struck  when  God  himself  forsakes  his 
Son  upon  the  cross,  and  Jesus  Christ,  in  his  agony, 
cries,  "  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken 
me?" 

The  Gospel  according  to  Matthew,  then,  is  the  Gos- 
.  pel  of  rejection ;  it  is  the  Gospel  of  sorrow ;  it  is  the 
Gospel  of  sacrifice;  it  is  the  proof  that  the  expected 
King  and  Messiah  of  Israel  is  the  appointed  ransom  for 
sinners ;  it  is  intended  to  show  to  those  who  might  be 
staggering  over  this  fact  that  this  is  the  very  fulfil- 
ment of  prophecy,  the  very  proof  that  Jesus'  work  is 
a  fulfilment  of  God's  eternal  plan  of  redemption.  The 
Gospel  according  to  Matthew,  then,  is  the  Gospel  of 
sacrifice ;  but  you  must  remember  that  sacrifice  involved 
death,  and  that  death  is  followed  by  resurrection.  We 
find  the  founding  of  the  new  covenant,  and  the  spread 
of  the  gospel  through  all  the  world,  predicted  in  the 
closing  verses  of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew.  Matthew's 
sacrifice  is  "  Sacrifice,  out  of  which  joy  and  triumph 


THE    GOSPEL    ACCORDING    TO    MATTHEW  6l 

have  come  " ;  and  it  is  only  in  Matthew  that  you  have 
the  command,  "  Go  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the 
gospel  to  every  creature."  The  central  thought  of  the 
Gospel  is  indicated  in  those  words  in  which  Christ 
instituted  the  Lord's  Supper :  "  This  is  my  blood  of  the 
new  covenant,  which  is  shed  for  many  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins  " ;  in  other  words,  a  new  covenant  is 
now  established,  in  place  of  the  old  covenant,  by  the 
blood  of  Jesus;  so  that  Matthew  furnishes  the  proper  y 
transition  from  the  Old  Testament  to  the  New,  and 
shows  how  the  old  covenant  is  merged  in  the  new 
covenant,  the  new  covenant  of  grace  and  mercy  to 
mankind,  through  the  blood  of  Christ. 

One  or  two  words  with  regard  to  the  structure  of 
this  Gospel.  We  can  understand  this  very  much  better, 
now  that  we  have  the  leading  thought.  The  childhood 
of  Jesus  is  related ;  and  then  the  Gospel  is  divided  into 
two  great  parts:  First,  our  Saviour's  ministerial  work 
in  Galilee;  and,  secondly,  his  preparation  for  the  cru- 
cifixion. Two  great  parts,  I  repeat — the  one  having 
to  do  with  his  official  life  in  Galilee,  and  the  second 
with  regard  to  his  preparation  for  the  crucifixion. 

The  first  of  these  parts  answers  to  what  I  have  called  -i 
the  second  year  of  the  Saviour's  ministry;  and  the 
second  part  answers  to  what  I  have  called  the  third  \ 
year  of  the  Saviour's  ministry — the  ministry  of  Jesus 
in  Judea  not  being  described  at  all  by  Matthew.  We 
have,  then,  the  official  life  of  the  Saviour  in  Galilee 
described  first  of  all,  and,  as  a  preface,  Jesus'  baptism. 
Secondly,  we  have  the  preparation  for  the  crucifixion 
described,  and  the  preface  to  that  is  the  account  of  the 
transfiguration. 


62  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

There  are  many  evidences  of  structure  in  Matthew's 
Gospel ;  it  has  a  plan ;  read  it  with  a  view  to  this  and 
I  think  you  will  be  greatly  struck  by  its  order  and 
system. 

The  first  part  of  the  Gospel,  the  account  of  Christ's 

official  life  in  Galilee,  is  prefaced  by  the  narrative  of 

his  baptism;  but  it  is  also  prefaced  by  the  announce- 

^  ment,  "  from  this  time,  Jesus  began  to  preach  that  the 

kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand." 

The  second  great  division,  the  preparation  for  his 
crucifixion,  is  prefaced  in  a  similar  way  by  words  that 
remind  us  of  the  first :  "  From  this  time,  Jesus  began 
■  to  show  unto  his  disciples  that  he  must  go  to  Jerusalem 
to  suffer  many  things  from  the  chief  priests  " ;  and  this 
preface  predicts  his  sacrifice,  and,  after  his  death,  his 
rising  on  the  third  day.  So  we  have  a  preface  to  the 
first  part,  and  a  preface  to  the  second  part. 

After  the  preface  to  the  first  part,  we  have  a  ser- 
mon,  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  the  giving  out  of  the 
law  of  the  new  covenant;  and  just  so,  when  we  come 
to  the  second  part,  after  this  announcement  that  I  have 
spoken  of,  we  have  another  sermon  to  the  disciples, 
on  humility.  As  the  first  sermon  was  the  laying  out  of 
the  law  of  his  kingdom  for  all  men,  so  the  second  part 
of  the  Gospel  has  its  sermon  and  discourse  to  the 
disciples  themselves,  on  humility. 

Then,  in  the  first  part,  as  the  sermon  is  followed  by 
a  series  of  miracles,  and  a  growth  of  power,  showing 
that  Jesus  has  the  authority  to  speak ;  so,  in  the  second 
part,  we  have,  after  the  sermon  on  humility,  another 
N  series  of  miracles.  In  the  first  part  we  have  that  series 
of  miracles  followed  by  parables,  a  dozen  or  more  of 


THE    GOSPEL    ACCORDING    TO    MATTHEW  63 

them;  and,  in  the  second  part,  we  have  its  miracles    ^ 
followed  by  prophecies. 

It  is  impossible  to  go  into  this  more  minutely,  be- 
cause I  should  burden  your  minds.  I  can  only  hint  at 
these  evidences  of  structure  in  the  Gospel.  A  great 
trouble  with  us,  in  our  reading  of  the  Gospels,  is  that 
we  read  them  without  looking  beneath  the  surface. 
We  do  not  analyze  and  divide  the  Gospel  into  its  dif- 
ferent parts,  as  we  should.  We  would  enjoy  our  read- 
ing very  much  more  if  we  made  an  analysis  of  the 
whole;  and  here,  in  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew, 
we  would  find  marvelous  evidences  of  structure. 

Matthew  differs  from  Mark  most  palpably  in  this, 
that  while  Mark  relates  things  in  chronological  order, 
Matthew  finds  the  thought  of  much  more  importance 
than  the  mere  chronological  order,  and  groups  things 
in  a  philosophical  way.  Matthew,  for  example,  gives 
us  a  number  of  the  parables  together,  although,  from 
other  Evangelists,  we  have  reason  to  believe  that  they 
were  not  all  spoken  at  the  same  time.  Matthew  gives  us 
a  number  of  Jesus'  miracles  together;  although,  from 
other  Evangelists,  we  have  reason  to  believe  that  not 
all  of  these  miracles  were  performed  at  the  same  time. 

Matthew  describes  the  life  of  Christ  in  an  orderly 
and  systematic  way,  following,  not  chronological,  but 
logical  order.  In  that  respect  he  is  more  like  our 
modern  historian  than  was  the  ancient  annalist.  The 
latter  confines  himself  to  the  chronological  order, 
making  his  history  a  succession  of  dates,  giving  what 
happened,  for  instance,  on  the  twenty-second  day  of 
March,  then  what  happened  on  the  twenty-third,  and 
so  on.    The  modern  historian  does  nothing  of  that  sort. 


i 


64  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Green,  in  his  "  Short  History  of  the  EngHsh  People," 
takes  up  a  movement  and  carries  that  movement  on 
for  a  hundred  years;  then  going  back  for  a  hundred 
years  to  begin  with  another  movement  and  to  describe 
that.  The  modern  historian  groups  things.  Matthew 
groups,  while  Mark  follows  simply  the  order  of  time. 

There  are  some  peculiarities  of  Matthew's  Gospel. 
There  are  many  things  which  we  get  from  Matthew, 
and  from  no  other  of  the  Evangelists.  For  example, 
f  Matthew  alone  tells  us  about  the  coming  of  the  wise 
men  from  the  East;  Matthew  alone  tells  us  of  the 
slaughter  of  the  innocents;  Matthew  alone  tells  us  of 
the  incidents  of  the  flight  to  Egypt  and  return  to  Naza- 
reth ;  Matthew  alone  tells  us  of  the  coming  of  the  Phari- 
sees and  Sadducees  to  the  baptizing  by  John ;  Matthew 
alone  tells  us  of  Christ's  betrayal  by  Judas  for  thirty 
pieces  of  silver;  Matthew  alone  tells  us  of  Judas' 
remorse  and  death ;  Matthew  alone  tells  us  of  the  dream 
of  Pilate's  wife;  Matthew  alone  tells  us  of  the  watch 
at  the  sepulcher ;  Matthew  alone  tells  us  of  the  bribing 
of  the  soldiers  at  the  sepulcher ;  Matthew  alone  tells  us 
of  the  opening  of  the  graves  and  the  resurrection  of  the 
saints;  Matthew  alone  gives  us  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  in  its  fulness;  Matthew  alone  gives  us  the  dis- 
course on  humility ;  Matthew  alone  gives  us  an  account 
of  the  last  judgment.  It  is  only  Matthew  that  tells  us 
of  that  promise  of  Christ :  "  Come  unto  me  all  ye  that 
labor  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  you  rest." 
It  is  only  Matthew  that  tells  that  every  idle  word  shall 
be  brought  into  judgment.  It  is  only  Matthew  that 
speaks  of  the  blessing  of  Christ  upon  Peter  for  his  great 
confession,  "  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living 


THE    GOSPEL   ACCORDING    TO    MATTHEW  65 

God."  It  is  only  Matthew  that  gives  us  the  parable 
of  the  Tares,  the  parable  of  the  Hid  Treasure,  the 
Goodly  Pearl,  the  Draw  Net,  the  Unmerciful  Servant, 
the  Laborers  in  the  Vineyard,  the  Two  Sons,  the  Mar- 
riage of  the  King's  Son,  the  Ten  Virgins,  the  Ten 
Talents,  and  the  Sheep  and  the  Goats. 

How  much  there  is  that  we  should  lose,  if  we  lost 
the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew !  Each  of  the  other 
Gospels  has  its  peculiarities,  as  we  shall  see;  but 
Matthew  is  a  precious  Gospel  in  what  it  alone  gives. 
So  Matthew  has  attained  his  object  by  proving  to  us 
that  this  carpenter  of  Nazareth,  this  man  of  low 
origin,  this  man  who  was  despised  and  rejected  of 
men,  is,  notwithstanding,  the  Son  of  God,  the  King  of 
Israel. 

That  is  the  first  of  Matthew's  great  teachings;  and 
the  second  of  his  great  teachings  is  this :  that  this  Son 
of  God  and  King  of  Israel  was  the  sacrifice  for  human 
sins,  and  that  by  that  sacrifice  he  became  the  great 
High  Priest  by  whom  Israel  is  brought  back  to  God. 
The  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  are  fulfilled  in 
the  death  of  Christ  for  the  sins  of  the  world:  Mat- 
thew is  the  Gospel  of  sacrifice.  Last  of  all,  we  find 
this  atonement  set  forth  as  the  turning-point  in  human 
history.  This  sacrifice  of  Christ  unites  the  old  cove- 
nant with  the  new,  constitutes  the  central  thought  of 
all  time,  and  is  the  one  great  event  of  the  ages. 

When  a  man  leaves  his  native  land  and  launches  out 
upon  the  sea,  he  passes  one  point  after  another,  until, 
at  last,  he  comes  to  the  final  headland ;  the  great  light- 
house there  sheds  its  light  over  the  sea,  but  disappears 
at  last  in  the  distance ;  he  gets  no  light  any  more  until 

E 


66  THE    BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

he  reaches  another  land.  So  I  have  thought  that,  when 
we  leave  this  world  and  launch  out  on  the  sea  of 
eternity,  there  are  many  lights;  but  the  last  light,  the 
only  light  that  will  remain  when  every  other  has 
vanished,  will  be  the  light  of  that  crucified  Son  of 
God,  who  suffered  for  the  sins  of  men.  That  is  the 
one  event  of  history.  And  the  death  of  Jesus  Christ 
for  the  sins  of  men,  the  sacrifice  of  the  Son  of  God  for 
you  and  for  me,  is  the  central  subject  of  the  Gospel 
according  to  Matthew. 


THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  MARK 

The  Gospel  we  study  this  morning  is  the  Gospel  of 
Mark.  John,  whose  surname  was  Mark,  is  mentioned 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles;  and  he  is  said  to  be  the 
son  of  Mary,  who  had  a  house  in  Jerusalem  which 
was  a  sort  of  rallying-point  for  the  disciples  in  the 
early  days  of  the  church.  It  is  just  possible  that  this 
very  house  may  have  contained  the  ''  upper  chamber  " 
in  which  Jesus  instituted  the  Lord's  Supper.  How- 
ever that  may  be,  it  is  certain  that  John  Mark  was  a 
Jew.  His  first  name  would  indicate  this.  Possibly 
he  was  a  native  of  Jerusalem;  and  yet,  being  a  native 
of  Jerusalem,  he  would  seem  to  have  had  some  Latin 
connections;  the  name  Mark,  or  Marcus,  might  possi- 
bly indicate  that;  and  some  other  allusions  in  his 
Gospel  seem  to  indicate  the  same  thing.  It  would 
seem  as  if  the  name  Mark  came  to  be  used  more  fre- 
quently by  him  than  the  other  Jewish  name,  just  in 
proportion  as  his  activity  transcended  the  bounds  of 
Palestine,  and  he  devoted  himself  to  preaching  to  the 
Gentiles. 

It  is  possible  that  this  passing  from  the  name  John 
to  the  name  Mark,  which  we  perceive  in  the  Acts  and 
in  the  Epistles,  was  significant  of  an  inward  change 
in  the  man  himself,  or  in  the  purpose  of  his  life;  just 
as  Levi,  when  he  entered  the  service  of  Christ,  became 
Matthew;  just  as  Saul,  when  he  entered  the  service  of 
Christ,  became  Paul. 


68  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Peter,  in  his  first  Epistle,  speaks  of  Marcus,  his  son. 
Now,  this  may  intimate  that,  during  Peter's  visits  to 
the  house  of  Mary,  Marcus'  mother,  the  young  and 
active  lad  became  inspired  by  Peter's  words,  and  was 
converted  to  Christ.  It  would  seem  as  if  Mark  were 
a  convert  of  Peter;  and  you  remember  that,  near  the 
close  of  Mark's  Gospel,  there  is  a  peculiar  incident 
narrated  in  regard  to  a  certain  young  man  who,  when 
Jesus  was  apprehended  and  the  apostles  forsook  him 
and  fled,  still  followed  after  Christ,  was  laid  hold  of  by 
the  armed  men  who  were  taking  Jesus  away  to  the 
judgment-hall,  and  in  his  fright  and  haste  fled  away 
naked,  leaving  his  garments  in  their  hands.  No  name  is 
attached  to  this  incident;  but  it  is  perhaps  something 
more  than  a  mere  conjecture  that  this  young  man  may 
have  been  Mark  himself,  and  that  this  incident,  in 
which  he  seems  to  be  throwing  in  his  lot  with  the  dis- 
ciples of  Christ,  was  an  early  indication  of  his  con- 
version to  the  Saviour  and  his  purpose  to  devote 
himself  to  his  Lord. 

It  seems  that  Barnabas  was  a  cousin  of  Mark.  If 
you  will  read  the  chapter  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
which  tells  of  Peter's  rescue  from  prison  and  of  his 
coming  back  to  that  house,  knocking,  and  being  at 
first  taken  for  Peter's  spirit  or  Peter's  angel,  you  will 
find  that  the  chapter  is  preceded  by  the  account  of  the 
visit  of  Paul  and  Barnabas  to  Jerusalem,  as  messengers 
of  the  church  at  Antioch,  and  is  followed  by  the  de- 
parture of  Paul  and  Barnabas,  taking  with  them  John 
Mark.  Now,  it  is  just  possible  that,  at  that  very  meet- 
ing of  the  church,  where  they  were  praying  for  Peter 
and  for  his  release,  Paul  and  Barnabas  were  them- 


THE    GOSPEL   ACCORDING    TO    MARK  69 

selves  present;  and  it  is  just  possible  that,  as  the 
result  of  that  great  incident,  Mark  may  have  been 
especially  impressed  with  the  obligation  of  devoting 
himself  permanently  and  exclusively  to  the  w^ork  of 
the  ministry.  At  any  rate,  we  find  that  he  went  with 
Paul  and  Barnabas  to  Antioch ;  that,  when  they  started 
out  on  their  first  missionary  journey,  he  went  with 
them  to  Perga ;  and  that  it  was  only  when  Paul  under- 
took a  larger  circuit  and  concluded  to  go  into  Pam- 
phylia,  in  Asia  Minor,  that  Mark  seems  to  have  been 
seized  with  some  change  of  purpose.  It  would  almost 
seem  as  if  the  impetuous  and  restless  spirit  of  Peter 
had  found  its  like  in  Mark,  and  that  we  have  in  this 
case  some  proof  or  indication  of  vacillation  on  Mark's 
part.  He  departed  from  Paul,  and  went  back  to  An- 
tioch ;  and  the  result  was  that  Paul  gained,  for  a  time 
at  least,  an  unfavorable  impression  with  regard  to 
Mark's  stability,  and  censured  him.  However,  we 
find  it  was  the  cause  of  quite  a  severe  contention  be- 
tween Paul  and  Barnabas.  Barnabas  took  Mark  with 
him,  and  held  to  him ;  but  afterward  we  find  that  Paul 
seems  to  have  received  Mark  again  into  his  fellowship. 
We  find  Mark  serving  with  Paul  at  Rome  as  his  cher- 
ished helper ;  we  find  Mark  with  Peter  at  the  very  east 
of  the  Roman  Empire,  in  Babylon;  and  afterward  we 
find  him  with  Timothy  at  Ephesus,  where,  in  one  of 
his  last  letters,  Paul  urged  Mark  to  come  to  him  again 
at  Rome ;  so  that  Mark  seems  to  have  recovered  what- 
ever ground  he  had  lost  both  with  Peter  and  Paul. 
The  only  thing  which  can  be  added  to  these  incidents 
in  the  life  of  Mark  is  the  tradition  that  he  founded  the 
church  at  Alexandria,  that  he  became  bishop  of  that 


JO  THE    BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

church,  and  that  he  suffered  martyrdom  there.  It  is 
evident  that  Mark  was  a  great  traveler.  He  went 
from  one  end  of  the  Roman  Empire  to  another.  He 
was  the  famihar  companion  both  of  Peter  and  Paul, 
with  something  of  the  restless  and  active  mind  that 
belonged  to  the  first,  preaching  both  to  the  Jews  and  to 
the  Gentiles. 

Papias,  one  of  the  very  earliest  of  the  apostolic 
Fathers,  tells  us  that  Mark  was  the  interpreter  of 
Peter.  Now  precisely  what  these  words  "  interpreter 
of  Peter  "  mean  has  been  a  question  among  church 
historians.  It  may  mean  that  Mark  was  the  transla- 
tor of  Peter's  oral  address;  that  he  was  interpreter 
in  that  narrow  sense;  that,  while  Peter  uttered  his 
words  either  in  Aramaic  or  Greek,  Mark  interpreted 
them  into  the  Latin.  Or  it  may  mean  (and  the  most 
are  inclined  to  take  the  words  in  this  sense)  that  Mark 
was  the  writer  in  Greek  of  what  Peter  spoke  in  Ara- 
maic, that  Mark  put  down  on  paper  the  things  which 
Peter  orally  preached.  The  idea,  I  suppose,  is  not  that 
Peter  dictated,  and  that  Mark  took  down  from  his  dic- 
tation his  oral  gospel ;  nor  do  I  think  it  probable  that 
Peter  himself  wrote  a  sort  of  diary  and  that  Mark 
expanded  it.  It  would  rather  seem  as  if  Peter  had 
suggested  to  Mark  the  putting  down  in  Greek,  as  a 
matter  of  permanent  record,  things  which  were  the 
subject  of  his  preaching,  and  which  Mark  probably  had 
heard  him  detail  over  and  over  again,  in  their  some- 
what stereotyped  form,  until  at  last  they  had  impressed 
themselves  deeply  upon  his  memory. 

As  Eusebius,  under  the  authority  of  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  tells  us,  Peter  had  the  Gospel  which  Mark 


THE    GOSPEL   ACCORDING    TO    MARK  7 1 

wrote  out  in  Greek  submitted  to  him  for  his  approval 
and  sanction;  and,  therefore,  the  Gospel  as  we  have  it 
now  is  practically  the  Gospel  of  Peter.  There  are 
some  indications  in  the  Gospel  itself  that  it  is,  indi- 
rectly at  least,  the  work  of  Peter,  or  that  it  has  the 
sanction  of  Peter,  and  practically  represents  the  gospel 
as  Peter  preached  it.  For  example,  we  have  all  inci- 
dents in  which  Peter  was  expressly  praised  omitted; 
and  we  have  other  incidents,  in  which  Peter  was 
blamed,  retained.  The  praise  which  Christ  gave  to 
Peter,  "  Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  will  I 
build  my  church,"  is  significantly  omitted;  but  the 
words,  ''  Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan,"  which  were 
spoken  to  Peter  by  Christ  in  the  way  of  reproof,  are 
retained;  and  we  have  two  cock-crowings  in  Mark, 
adding  to  the  guilt  of  Peter  in  his  denial,  while  in 
Matthew  we  have  only  one.  All  these  are  evidences 
that  Peter  had  something  to  do  with  its  authorship. 

Many  things  are  narrated  to  us  by  Mark  in  the  third 
person  singular,  which  seem  to  be  reports  of  what 
Peter  had  told  to  Mark  in  the  first  person.  As,  for 
example,  we  have  such  a  sentence  as  this,  "  Peter  and 
those  with  him  followed  after  " ;  the  singular  number 
used  in  the  verb.  The  best  explanation  is  that  Peter 
narrated  this  incident  to  Mark  in  the  first  person  singu- 
lar, and  that  Mark  simply  put  down  what  he  had  heard 
from  Peter  in  the  third  person ;  but  it  is  impossible  to 
enlarge  upon  this.  It  is  only  one  of  many  indications 
that  Mark  had  heard  from  Peter  a  narration  of  his 
personal  experience;  that  he  had  become  minutely  ac- 
quainted with  Peter's  oral  gospel;  and  that  he  had 
put  down  what  he  had  heard  from  Peter  in  a  more 


72  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

general  form,  a  form  which  was  capable  of  more 
general  use. 

How  can  we  claim  that  the  Gospel  of  Mark  is  in- 
spired, when  Mark  was  not  an  apostle  of  the  Lord? 
I  suppose  that  a  true  answer  to  that  question  is  just 
this,  that  the  promise  which  our  Saviour  gave  to  those 
who  should  speak  and  teach  in  his  name  was  a 
promise,  not  simply  to  the  individuals  before  him,  but 
to  those  who  should  stand  in  their  place.  It  was  a 
promise  to  apostles  and  apostolic  men.  It  was  a 
promise  to  those  who  should  be  the  first  pillars  and 
teachers  of  his  church;  so  that  it  was  practically  a 
promise  to  Paul,  as  well  as  those  eleven  apostles  that 
were  before  him  at  the  time ;  and  it  was  a  promise  to 
Mark,  if  Mark  should  be  the  representative  of  Peter, 
the  scribe  of  Peter,  the  interpreter  of  Peter.  It  was  a 
promise  to  Luke,  if  Luke  should  stand  in  the  place  of 
Paul;  it  was  a  promise  to  James,  the  brother  of  our 
Lord.  It  was  a  promise  to  any  such  as  should  be 
chosen  in  God's  providence  to  be  the  original  pro- 
claimers  of  the  gospel,  the  putters  of  that  gospel  into 
permanent  and  written  form. 

Where  this  Gospel  was  written,  I  do  not  certainly 
know;  and  I  do  not  think  that  any  one  can  certainly 
tell.  It  may  have  been  written  in  Babylon,  with  Peter ; 
and  it  may  have  been  written  in  Rome,  if  Peter  ever 
was  in  Rome;  but  even  about  this  residence  of  Peter 
in  Rome,  and  still  more  in  regard  to  the  fact  that 
Peter  was  bishop  of  Rome,  I  do  not  think  we  can  say 
we  have  any  certainty  at  all.  At  any  rate,  it  is  true 
that  the  Gospel  was  written  some  time  before  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem — probably  before  the  year  60; 


THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  MARK        73 

and  if  we  were  to  put  the  date  definitely  at  all,  con- 
jecturally,  it  is  more  likely  to  be  the  year  56,  or  the  year 
55,  perhaps,  than  any  other.  There  are  certain  in- 
dications in  the  Epistles  which  give  some  reason  for 
assigning  the  date  within  these  limits.  Some  of  the 
Epistles  were  written  as  late  as  the  year  62;  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  in  which  Mark  is  mentioned, 
we  have  no  mention  whatever  of  the  Gospels;  in  the 
First  Epistle  of  Peter  there  is  an  indication  that  Peter 
intended  to  see  that  the  disciples  were  put  permanently 
in  possession  of  the  substance  of  the  gospel :  '^  He 
would  see  to  it  that  they  had  the  means  of  keeping  in 
remembrance  these  things  which  they  had  heard  " ;  and 
this  would  indicate  that  the  Gospels  were  yet  to  be 
written.  Luke,  however,  refers  to  accounts  of  Ghrist's 
life  earlier  than  his  own,  and  we  cannot  put  his  Gospel 
later  than  the  year  59.  Matthew  must  have  preceded 
Luke  by  at  least  a  single  year,  and  so  must  be  dated 
as  early  as  58.  Since  Mark  is  the  simplest  and  earliest 
of  the  Gospels,  we  seem  compelled  to  assign  the  year 
56  or  55  for  its  composition. 

Now,  the  description  of  Christ  which  is  given  in  the 
Gospel  corresponds  quite  well  with  what  I  have  said 
with  regard  to  the  character  of  Mark,  and  with  regard 
to  the  character  of  Peter,  of  whom  Mark  was  the  inter- 
preter. The  Gospel  seems  to  have  been  written  for 
Roman  hearers,  or  for  Roman  readers.  It  is  the  Gos- 
pel of  miracles,  we  might  say;  or,  to  put  it  in  another 
form,  the  Gospel  according  to  Mark  represents  Christ 
as  the  mighty  Wonder-worker.  It  is  a  Gospel  intended 
for  the  Roman  world,  for  the  Romans  who  were 
masters  of  the  world,  for  the  Romans  among  whom 


74  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

energy  and  will  were  almost  deified.  The  Gospel  ac- 
cording to  Mark  is  a  Gospel  of  deeds  rather  than  of 
words.  It  is  a  Gospel  in  which  the  Saviour  is  set 
before  us  as  restlessly  active,  as  full  of  energy,  as  full 
of  power.  We  find,  for  example,  that  the  portions  of 
our  Saviour's  life  which  have  not  to  do  with  his  public 
activity  are  wholly  omitted.  Matthew  tells  us  very 
much  in  regard  to  the  infancy  of  Christ,  or  at  least 
gives  us  many  incidents  connected  with  his  birth  and 
childhood ;  but,  in  Mark,  the  whole  story  begins  with 
the  baptism  by  John  the  Baptist.  We  have  described 
to  us  only  the  activity  of  our  Lord;  and  the  long  dis- 
courses which  are  given  to  us  in  Matthew  are  either 
omitted  in  Mark,  or  they  are  so  curtailed  that  but  the 
germ  of  them  remains.  We  have  no  subjective  sen- 
tences or  reflections.  We  have  only  the  merest  allu- 
sions to  that  long  Sermon  on  the  Mount  which  is 
recorded  in  the  early  part  of  Matthew's  Gospel,  import- 
ant as  that  sermon  was.  The  whole  method  of  Mark 
is  the  method  of  an  annalist  rather  than  the  method  of 
a  philosophical  historian. 

Mark  is  a  man  of  affairs;  Mark  is  a  man  who  fol- 
lows chronological  order;  Mark  gives  us  but  very  lit- 
tle grouping.  In  Mark,  there  seems  to  be  the  attempt 
to  follow,  from  day  to  day  and  almost  from  hour  to 
hour,  the  incidents  of  the  Saviour's  life;  and  so  we 
find  that  the  element  of  discourse  plays  an  exceedingly 
small  part  in  Mark,  compared  with  Matthew  and  Luke. 
A  single  illustration,  perhaps,  may  set  this  before  you 
better  than  anything  else  that  I  can  say.  A  statistical 
account  of  the  miracles  and  the  parables,  and  the  pro- 
portionate space  they  occupy  in  Matthew,  Mark,  and 


THE    GOSPEL    ACCORDING    TO    MARK  75 

Luke  is  exceedingly  instructive.  Now  Matthew  gives 
us  twenty  miracles  of  Christ,  and  Luke  gives  us  twenty 
miracles  of  Christ;  and,  although  Mark's  Gospel  is 
not  more  than  one-half  as  long  as  the  Gospel  according 
to  Matthew,  Mark  gives  us  nineteen.  Yet,  when  you 
come  to  the  parables,  Matthew  gives  us  fifteen,  Luke 
gives  us  twenty-three,  and  Mark  only  four.  This  is  a 
simple  illustration  of  Mark's  Gospel.  He  is  occupied 
with  events;  he  is  not  occupied  so  much  w^ith  dis- 
courses. It  is  not  so  much  the  teaching  of  Christ,  as 
it  is  the  life  of  Christ,  that  interests  him.  Moreover, 
you  will  find  that,  in  Mark,  you  have  no  reference 
whatever  to  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy.  I  speak  some- 
what hyperbolically  here.  There  are  certain  sayings 
of  Christ  in  which  Christ's  words  have  to  be  quoted, 
one  might  say;  and,  therefore,  there  is  here  and  there 
an  allusion  to  prophecy ;  but  that  everlasting,  ''  That 
thus  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by  the 
prophets,"  that  you  have  continually  recurring  in  Mat- 
thew, you  have  nothing  of  in  Mark  at  all.  You  have 
no  genealogies  of  Christ  in  Mark,  no  connecting  of 
Christ  with  the  old  dispensation.  You  have  nothing 
with  regard  to  the  fulfilment  in  Christ  of  the  predic- 
tions of  the  Old  Testament.  Mark  narrates  the  life  of 
Christ  only  as  it  is  a  matter  of  present  interest,  with- 
out reference  to  the  past;  and  so,  while  Matthew's 
great  object  is  to  connect  great  epochs  of  history  with 
one  another,  connect  the  new  with  the  old,  and  build 
upon  the  foundation  of  the  Old  Testament  prophets, 
Mark  has  no  such  concern.  Mark's  idea  is  to  set  be- 
fore us  the  Wonder-worker,  the  individual  personality 
of  the  Son  of  God,  and  to  show  how  continuously 


76  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

active  he  was.  Matthew,  moreover,  is  the  Gospel  of 
rejection:  in  Matthew  you  have  a  continual  undertone 
of  sorrow ;  Christ  is  represented  there  as  the  sacrifice ; 
he  is  the  fulfilment  of  the  Old  Testament  predictions 
of  a  High  Priest  of  Israel;  and  so  the  symbol  of  the 
Gospel  according  to  Matthew  is  the  sacrificial  bullock ; 
but  for  Mark,  you  have  as  a  proper  symbol  the  lion ; 
Christ  is  the  lion  of  the  tribe  of  Judah;  he  is  the  Sa- 
viour full  of  energy,  full  of  power,  working  wonders 
among  men.  Mark's  Gospel  is  the  Gospel  of  activity ; 
it  is  the  Gospel  of  victory ;  it  is  the  Gospel  of  triumph, 
as  compared  with  the  Gospel  of  Matthew.  It  is  another 
aspect  of  the  Saviour's  life ;  it  is  another  aspect  of  the 
Saviour's  work.  The  Gospel  according  to  Mark  is 
crowded  with  action. 

It  is  worth  while  to  read  over  each  one  of  these 
Gospels  in  the  light  of  this  general  characterization. 
After  getting  the  general  idea  of  each  one,  if  we  read 
it  through  with  an  eye  to  that  particular  idea,  a  great 
many  things  assume  a  new  significance.  For  example, 
you  have  in  Mark  a  spirit  of  restless  activity;  he  recog- 
nizes in  Christ  just  that  which  satisfies  the  demand  of 
his  particular  nature.  There  is  no  word  in  the  whole 
Gospel  according  to  Mark  that  is  more  characteristic 
and  significant  than  the  word  ey^^yc,  the  word  "  imme- 
diately," or  ''  straightway."  You  find  that  word  two 
or  three  times  in  Matthew ;  two  or  three  times  in  Luke ; 
but  in  Mark  it  is  perpetually  recurring.  In  Mark  it 
occurs  forty-one  times.  In  Mark,  whatever  is  done 
is  done  "  straightway,"  ''  immediately,"  and  there  is 
rapid  passage  from  one  event  to  another.  As  soon  as 
Christ  works  a  miracle,   straightway  something  else 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING    TO    MARK  J-] 

happens.  Mark  seems  to  be  bent  upon  passing  rapidly 
from  one  thing  to  another,  and  recognizing  the  con- 
tinual activity  of  the  Saviour's  life.  It  is  Mark  that 
tells  us  that  the  room  where  they  were  was  so  full  they 
could  not  stand.  It  is  Mark  that  tells  us  that  our 
Saviour  was  so  busy  with  the  disciples  that  they  had 
no  time  to  eat.  It  is  Mark  that  tells  us  that  Jesus  was 
so  restlessly  active  that  the  people  thought  he  was 
beside  himself.  All  these  things  are  given  to  us  by 
Mark  alone. 

Mark  describes  the  awe-stricken  impression  of  the 
disciples  that  Jesus  was  more  than  mortal  man  when 
he  started  to  go  from  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration  to 
Jerusalem  to  suffer.  He  went  forward  with  so  ma- 
jestic a  mien  of  determination  and  sacrifice  that  the 
disciples  were  amazed  and  afraid.  No  Evangelist  but 
Mark  gives  us  this  aspect  of  the  Saviour's  countenance. 
Mark  represents  Jesus  as  the  Saviour  of  achievement. 
Jesus,  in  entering  into  a  town,  finds  that  they  are  all 
ready  to  receive  him.  The  whole  town  rises  up  to  meet 
him.  They  run  on  foot  out  of  their  cities  to  come  to 
him;  and,  when  they  bring  to  him  their  sick,  all  that 
even  touched  him  were  made  perfectly  whole.  This 
incident,  which  Mark,  and  Mark  alone,  gives  to  us, 
presents  a  peculiar  impression  of  the  energy,  the  will, 
the  activity  of  the  Saviour's  life. 

Thus  Mark  sets  before  us  our  Saviour  in  the  pecu- 
liar light  of  a  miracle-worker,  a  wonder-worker,  one 
who  makes  majestic  and  unique'  impressions,  not  only 
upon  his  disciples  but  upon  all  men.  The  literary 
characteristics  of  Mark's  Gospel  are  just  such  as  befit 
its  subject  on  one  hand — the  peculiar  aspect  in  which 


y8  THE    BOOKS   OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

it  regards  the  person  of  the  Lord  Jesus — and  just  such 
as  befit  the  nature  of  Mark,  as  we  are  inclined  to  in- 
terpret it,  and  just  such  as  befit  Peter  himself,  of 
whom  Mark  is  the  representative  and  interpreter. 

Mark's  Gospel  is  the  briefest  of  all  the  Gospels.  It 
is  not  only  brief  in  its  general  compass,  but  it  is  ex- 
ceedingly terse  in  its  style.  No  other  of  the  Gospels 
bears  comparison  with  it.  Everything  is  "  touch  and 
go,"  in  Mark's  Gospel.  There  is  no  amplification  in 
Mark;  everything  is  sharp  and  incisive.  And,  while 
everything  is  brief,  there  is  also  the  other  element  of 
picturesqueness,  of  a  graphic  quality.  The  pictorial 
element  is  better  represented  in  Mark  than  in  any  other 
of  the  Gospels.  Mark  is  a  man  of  affairs;  Mark  evi- 
dently was  a  man  of  keen  eye ;  Mark  had  his  wits  about 
him,  and  was  observing  and  jotted  down  in  memory, 
if  not  upon  paper,  everything  he  saw;  and  the  result 
is  that,  although  Mark's  Gospel  is  the  briefest  of  the 
Gospels,  there  is  more  of  detail  in  Mark's  Gospel 
than  in  either  one  of  the  others;  i,  e.,  there  is  more 
of  picturesque  detail,  more  evidence  that  it  is  a  picture 
from  real  life.  There  is  more  in  the  Gospel  according 
to  Mark  than  in  the  other  Gospels  that  no  forger  could 
have  counterfeited.  It  is  a  healthy,  breezy  narrative, 
that  takes  you  right  into  the  midst  of  affairs.  If  the 
Gospel  according  to  John  is  written  for  the  contem- 
plative life  of  earlier  days  than  ours,  the  Gospel  ac- 
cording to  Mark  is  written  for  this  wide-awake,  mov- 
ing, pressing,  rushing  twentieth  century. 

The  Gospel  according  to  Mark  is  not  only  brief, 
terse,  vivid,  pictorial,  graphic  in  its  whole  style,  but 
there  is  also  a  minuteness  of  detail,  a  picking  out  of 


THE    GOSPEL   ACCORDING    TO    MARK  79 

little  things  that  give  interest  and  vividness  to  the 
narrative,  such  as  are  very  difficult  to  describe  in 
general  and  can  be  illustrated  only  by  certain  particu- 
lars. 

Let  me  try  to  instance  a  very  few  of  the  things  which 
Mark  tells,  and  which  we  get  from  no  other  Evangel- 
ist. At  the  baptism,  when  Christ  comes  up  from  the 
water,  after  prayer,  there  is  one  incident  which  only 
Mark  gives  us.  Our  Lord,  with  a  deep  sense  of  his 
responsibility  as  he  is  entering  upon  the  ministry,  to 
which  now  pictorially  he  has  devoted  himself  by  sub- 
mersion under  the  waters  of  death,  thus,  at  the  be- 
ginning of  his  ministry,  symbolically  indicating  that 
baptism  of  death  with  which  his  ministry  is  to  close, 
and  feeling  his  need  of  the  strength  and  help  of  God, 
opens  his  great  heart  to  heaven  and  prays  to  the 
Father ;  and  then  what  is  the  result  ?  Why,  Mark  tells 
us  that  the  heavens  were  rent,  and  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
came  down  like  a  dove  upon  him.  "  Were  rent !  "  No 
other  Evangelist  gives  us  that  temporary  rending  of 
the  heavens ;  as  if  God,  in  answer  to  Jesus'  prayer,  has 
parted  the  very  heavens  to  come  down.  It  is  only 
Mark  who  tells  us  that,  immediately  after  the  baptism, 
the  Saviour  was  driven  by  the  Spirit  into  the  wilder- 
ness: driven  by  the  Spirit,  overmastered  by  the  tre- 
mendous energy  of  the  divine  power  within,  was 
driven  into  the  wilderness,  in  order  that  there  he  might 
contemplate  the  plan  of  his  work;  and  then,  in  that 
wilderness,  it  is  only  Mark  that  tells  us  that  he  was 
among  the  wild  beasts  in  the  lone  solitudes  of  nature, 
with  no  other  than  irrational  creatures  about  him  to 
give  him  help  and  sympathy.     Yet  all  these  graphic 


8o  THE    BOOKS   OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

touches  are  in  the  first  chapter,  and  they  indicate  what 
we  find  in  every  single  chapter  of  the  Gospel  to  the 
end. 

Our  Saviour,  when  he  comes  up  into  Galilee,  is 
asleep  in  the  hinder  part  of  the  vessel,  and  is  lying  upon 
the  rower's  cushion,  fatigued  and  exhausted.  Only 
Mark  tells  of  this.  When  Jesus  performs  the  miracle 
of  casting  out  the  evil  spirit  from  the  boy  that  was 
possessed,  Mark  alone  tells  us  that  the  boy  wallowed 
upon  the  ground,  foaming.  Jesus  feeds  the  five 
thousand;  gathers  the  multitude  about  him;  but  only 
Mark  tells  us  that  they  all  sat  down  on  the  green  grass. 
The  imaginative,  the  pictorial  element  comes  in  there. 
Mark  saw  the  green.  No  other  Evangelist  apparently 
did.  These  are  mere  illustrations  of  what  occurs  many, 
many  times  over ;  and  even  what  I  have  given  will  be 
sufficient  to  show  that  we  are  under  a  special  debt  to 
the  author  of  the  Gospel  according  to  Mark,  for  this 
peculiar,  this  beautiful,  this  pictorial  way  of  setting 
forth  before  us  the  life  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 

It  is  not  only  true  that  the  literary  characteristics 
of  the  Gospel  according  to  Mark  embrace  brevity,  the 
graphic  quality,  exceeding  minuteness  of  detail,  but 
there  is  also  in  this  Gospel  a  singular  adaptation  to  the 
purpose  of  the  author,  and  to  the  readers  for  whom  it 
was  designed.  It  was  probably  designed  for  Roman 
readers.  You  have,  for  example,  the  coins  that  were 
used  in  that  day  designated,  not  by  their  Greek  or  their 
Aramaic  names,  but  by  their  Latin  names.  The  words 
that  would  be  perfectly  intelligible  to  the  Latin  readers 
are  the  words  that  Mark  uses.  You  have  centurio  and 
speculator,  both  of  them  simple  Latin  words;  though 


THE    GOSPEL   ACCORDING    TO    MARK  8l 

there  were  Greek  equivalents  for  the  words  "  centu- 
rion "  and  "  executioner,"  Mark  uses  the  words  which 
would  be  most  intelligible  to  the  circle  of  readers  for 
whom  he  wrote. 

Many  things  that  are  common  in  Palestine,  so  com- 
mon as  to  need  no  explanation,  Mark  sets  himself  to 
explain.  He  does  not  say  "  the  Jordan,"  but  the  "  river 
Jordan,"  as  if  there  might  be  some  of  his  readers  that 
did  not  know  that  Jordan  was  a  river.  He  tells  us  that 
the  Mount  of  Olives  was  over  against  Jerusalem,  while 
only  one  that  knew  nothing  about  Palestine  at  all,  and 
was  very  unfamiliar  with  the  topography  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, would  have  needed  that  explanation  that  the 
"  Mount  of  Olives  was  over  against  the  temple  of 
Jerusalem."  Mark  has  in  mind  a  peculiar  set  of  read- 
ers, and  he  is  continually  explaining  to  them  the  things 
of  which  those  who  were  familiar  with  Palestine  would 
need  no  explanation.  For  example,  wherever  Aramaic 
words  are  used,  you  find  that  Mark  invariably  trans- 
lates them.  You  do  not  find  that  Matthew  translates 
them  at  all.  He  has  another  set  of  readers  and  hear- 
ers, and  does  not  need  to  translate. 

So  we  have  indications  that  there  was  not  only  de- 
sign in  this  Gospel,  but  that  the  design  was  very  care- 
fully and  regularly  followed  out;  and  the  literary 
characteristics  of  the  Gospel  are  just  such  as  set  forth 
Christ  as  the  great  Wonder-worker  upon  the  earth. 

It  has  been  said,  you  know,  that  the  people  of  the 
first  century  were  very  imaginative,  very  credulous; 
that  they  expected  miracles  at  every  turn,  and  that, 
therefore,  any  narrative  with  regard  to  the  great 
Prophet  and  Teacher  would  have  lacked  its  essential 


82  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

interest  unless  miracles  had  been  interwoven  with  it. 
But  that  is  all  a  mistake;  for  the  ruling  class  among 
the  Jews,  the  wealthy  class,  and  the  most  educated 
class,  were  the  Sadducees ;  and  they  surely  did  not  be- 
lieve in  miracle,  nor  spirit,  nor  the  resurrection.  John 
the  Baptist  was  the  great  teacher,  and  had  the  greatest 
following  that  the  Jews  had  ever  known.  John  the 
Baptist  wrought  no  miracles.  Why  did  he  not  work 
miracles,  if  miracles  were  natural  and  necessarily  at- 
tributed to  every  great  Jewish  teacher?  There  was 
enough  of  the  critical  spirit  to  distinguish  between 
superstition  and  reality,  and  to  scrutinize  the  evidence 
upon  which  these  narratives  of  our  Saviour's  life 
rested.  We  have  reason  to  believe  that  such  scrutiny 
was  exercised,  and  that  these  narratives  were  accepted 
because  they  conform  to  the  testimony  of  witnesses 
who  were  yet  living  at  the  time  the  Gospels  were 
written. 

All  we  need  to  do  is  to  compare  this  vivid,  this 
bright,  this  healthy,  this  exceedingly  vigorous,  and  yet 
this  exceedingly  calm  and  clear  narrative  of  the  Sa- 
viour's life,  with  the  medieval  stories  of  miracles,  or 
the  stories  of  miracles  in  the  Apocryphal  New  Testa- 
ment; and  we  find  that  we  are  in  an  entirely  different 
atmosphere.  In  Mark  the  miracles  are  natural  and 
necessary  to  the  presence  of  him  who  is  the  greatest 
miracle,  who  is  in  himself  the  incarnate  Son  of  God. 
If  Jesus  Christ,  God  made  flesh,  did  not  signalize  his 
coming  by  a  miracle,  that  would  itself,  we  might  say, 
be  the  greatest  of  miracles.  If  Jesus,  the  Son  of  God, 
became  incarnate,  then  miracles  were  the  natural  and 
necessary  accompaniment  of  his  incarnation;  and  so 


THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  MARK        83 

we  claim  that  this  Gospel  of  Mark  needs  only  to  be 
read  and  studied  to  assure  him  who  reads  and  studies 
it  that  this  narrative  is  a  perfectly  credible  narrative 
of  historical  facts. 

The  argument  for  miracles  in  general,  of  course, 
does  not  belong  to  my  present  purpose.  I  have  only 
aimed  thus  far  to  show  you  that  the  Gospel  according 
to  Mark  is  unique  and  peculiar  in  its  character;  that 
it  sets  forth  Jesus  Christ  in  his  aspect  of  the  Wonder- 
worker; that  it  sets  forth  Jesus  Christ  so  naturally, 
so  simply,  with  so  many  indications  of  the  testimony 
of  an  eye-witness,  so  many  things  that  could  not  pos- 
sibly have  been  forged,  or  merely  imagined,  that  we 
have  in  this  Gospel  one  of  the  very  best  testimonies 
that  Jesus  Christ  lived  and  that  he  wrought  the 
wonders  that  were  attributed  to  him. 


THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  LUKE 

The  Gospel  according  to  Matthew  is  the  Gospel  of 
rejection  and  sacrifice.  The  Gospel  according  to  Mark 
is  an  exhibition  of  the  wonder-working  power  of  the 
Son  of  God.  The  Gospel  according  to  Luke,  which 
we  take  up  to-day,  is  the  Gospel  of  humanity,  the 
Gospel  that  brings  before  us  most  vividly  the  human 
life  of  our  Redeemer,  that  brings  him  most  intimately 
into  contact  with  our  human  wants  and  sorrows.  The 
Gospel  according  to  John,  which  concludes  the  four,  is 
the  Gospel  of  the  divinity,  as  the  Gospel  according  to 
Luke  is  the  Gospel  of  the  humanity,  of  Christ.  So  we 
have  a  complete  cycle,  a  perfect  whole,  in  these  four 
Gospels  with  which  the  New  Testament  begins. 

Luke  is  probably  a  contraction  for  the  longer  name 
Lucanus,  just  as  Apollos  is  a  contraction  for  the 
longer  Latin  name  Apollonius.  Luke  was  probably 
not  a  Jew;  for  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  where 
Paul  mentions  those  who  are  of  the  circumcision, 
Luke's  name  is  not  mentioned;  but  his  name  is  men- 
tioned among  others  who  follow,  and  who  are  appar- 
ently all  Gentiles,  or  of  Gentile  origin.  Tradition  says 
that  he  was  born  at  Antioch,  that  gathering-place  of 
the  nations,  far  to  the  north  of  Palestine. 

The  Gospel  is  dedicated  to  Theophilus,  just  as  the 
Acts,  written  also  by  Luke,  is  dedicated  to  Theophilus ; 
and  to  him  in  the  dedication  is  applied  the  very  pe- 
culiar epithet,   "  Most  excellent  Theophilus."     That 

84 


THE    GOSPEL    ACCORDING    TO    LUKE  85 

word  is  applied  also  by  Claudius  Lysias,  and  by  Ter- 
tullian,  to  Felix,  and  by  Paul  to  Festus,  both  of  them 
governors  of  Judea,  and  apparently  it  is  used  very 
much  as  we  should  use  the  words,  ''  Your  Excellency." 
Theophilus  appears,  therefore,  to  have  been  a  man 
not  only  of  official  position,  but  of  note  and  wealth; 
and  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  and  the  Acts  alike,  are  dedi- 
cated to  him  perhaps  in  token  of  respect,  perhaps  as 
the  patronus  lihri,  or  patron  of  the  book,  who  aids  in 
its  publication,  who  gives  to  it  a  certain  measure  of 
dignity  and  currency  through  his  sanction  and  recom- 
mendation. 

Tradition  says  that  this  Theophilus  was  himself  a 
resident  of  Antioch,  and  that  Luke  was  his  f reedman ; 
and  as  in  those  days  slaves  often  were  more  educated 
than  their  masters  and  pursued  employments  of  great 
respectability,  so  it  is  quite  possible  that  Luke  was  an 
educated  physician  while  yet  he  was  a  slave,  and  that 
after  a  time,  possibly  on  account  of  the  Christian  re- 
lations between  Theophilus,  his  master,  and  himself, 
he  became  the  freedman  of  Theophilus.  This  Gospel 
may  have  been  dedicated  to  the  master  who  had  set 
him  free,  as  a  token  of  gratitude  for  the  boon  he  had 
received  at  his  hands ;  and  yet,  after  all  this  is  said,  we 
must  also  say  that  it  rests  upon  precarious  tradition, 
and  not  the  very  greatest  weight  is  to  be  attached  to  it. 

Historically  the  first  thing  we  know  with  regard 
to  Luke  is  that  he  is  the  companion  of  Paul  in  Paul's 
journey  beginning  at  Troas.  Lightfoot,  a  very  saga- 
cious commentator  and  a  very  learned  man,  suggests 
that  this  first  appearance  of  Luke  in  company  with  Paul 
almost  exactly  synchronizes  with  the  attack  of  Paul's 


86  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

constitutional  malady,  which  Lightfoot  believes  to  have 
been  epilepsy;  and  he  suggests  that  Luke  may  have 
accompanied  Paul,  partly  in  his  professional  capacity, 
in  order  to  be  caring  for  the  health  of  the  apostle. 

You  remember  that  scene  in  which  the  man  of  Mac- 
edonia appears  in  a  dream  to  Paul  and  cries,  "  Come 
over  and  help  us  " ;  and  you  remember  the  response 
which  is  evoked.  The  apostle  Paul  goes  over  to 
Europe,  and  the  transition  is  made  from  missionary 
work  in  Asia  to  missionary  work  in  Europe.  Luke 
goes  with  Paul  to  Philippi;  and  there  at  Philippi  he 
seems  to  remain.  Notice  now  how  exceedingly  meager 
the  actual  material  is  for  building  up  even  this  story. 
It  all  rests  upon  the  use  of  the  word  "  we  "  in  place 
of  the  word  ''  they,"  when  Paul  comes.  In  all  Paul's 
journeys  up  to  Troas,  Luke,  in  the  Acts,  uses  the  word 
"they" — "they"  did  so  and  so;  but  from  Troas  we 
find  that  he  uses  the  word  "  we  " ;  and  that  word  "  we  " 
he  uses  until  Paul  comes  to  Philippi  and  departs  from 
Philippi.  Then  for  seven  years  of  Paul's  history  Luke 
does  not  appear  to  have  been  with  Paul ;  but  when  Paul 
comes  back  to  Philippi  again,  where  Luke  may  have 
been  left  as  pastor  of  the  church  for  the  instruction 
of  converts,  we  find  that  the  word  "  we  "  is  used  again. 
Luke  seems  to  have  accompanied  Paul  to  Asia,  i.  e.,  to 
Asia  Minor,  and  then  back  again  to  Palestine ;  and  at 
last  Luke  goes  with  Paul  to  Rome,  and  continues  with 
Paul  to  the  end  of  the  history. 

Curious,  is  it  not,  that,  although  Luke  is  the  writer 
of  the  Acts  and  was  the  companion  of  Paul,  he  men- 
tions his  own  name  not  even  once?  The  only  clue  we 
have  to  his  being  Paul's  companion  and  a  sharer  in 


THE    GOSPEL    ACCORDING    TO    LUKE  87 

his  labors  is  this  use  of  the  word  "  we  " ;  and  these 
''  we  passages,"  as  they  are  called,  have  become  famous 
on  this  account.  Luke  seems  to  have  desired  no  fame 
apart  from  that  of  his  master  and  teacher,  the  apostle. 
He  seems  to  have  desired  to  connect  himself  with  Paul, 
and  be  remembered  only  in  his  connection  with  Paul. 
Like  that  man  who  ordered  that  upon  his  tombstone 
there  should  be  inscribed  these  words,  "  Here  lies  the 
friend  of  Milton,"  so  Luke  seems  to  have  desired  that 
his  name  should  be  forever  connected  with  the  name 
of  the  great  apostle  of  the  Gentiles.  He  wanted  no 
other  honor  than  that  he  should  be  known  as  the  helper 
of  Paul,  the  preacher  of  Christ  to  the  Gentile  world. 

It  is  also  very  curious  that  the  moment  Paul  dis- 
appears, that  moment  the  history  of  Luke  becomes 
mere  surmise,  confusion,  and  fable.  Tradition  tells 
us  about  his  being  minister  in  Greece,  and  suffering 
martyrdom  there  by  being  nailed  to  an  olive-tree  in 
place  of  a  cross;  but  this  is  all  on  no  certain  founda- 
tion. He  was  the  companion  of  Paul  in  the  most  im- 
portant of  his  missionary  labors,  beginning  with  the 
second  missionary  journey  from  Troas,  and  then  going 
with  him  in  the  third  missionary  journey,  from  Philippi 
to  Palestine  and  Rome. 

The  date  of  the  Gospel  according  to  Luke  may  be 
inferred  with  some  degree  of  probability  from  the  data 
that  I  have  already  given  you.  It  is  pretty  clear  that 
the  evangelist  Luke  was  not  in  Palestine  (at  least  we 
have  no  data  at  all  to  show  us  that  he  was  in  Palestine 
at  all)  until  he  accompanied  Paul  there  from  Philippi. 
You  remember  what  happened  after  Paul  went  up  to 
Jerusalem  for  the  last  time,  how  he  was  apprehended. 


88  THE    BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

and  how  for  two  years  (between  the  years  58  and  60) 
he  was  prisoner  in  Csesarea.  This  is  the  only  certain 
time  to  which  we  can  assign  the  accumulation  of  the 
material  that  was  necessary  for  the  construction  of 
Luke's  Gospel.  That  time  of  Paul's  imprisonment, 
those  two  years  in  Caesarea,  was  the  only  time  when 
Luke  could  have  come  into  personal  contact  with 
Mary,  the  mother  of  our  Lord,  and  have  derived  from 
her,  as  he  must  have  derived,  his  information  with 
regard  to  the  infancy  and  growth  of  Christ,  his  pres- 
entation in  the  temple,  and  a  number  of  other  things 
which  are  narrated  to  us  by  Luke  alone.  It  must  have 
been  the  time,  if  any,  when  Luke  procured  from  some 
one  of  the  brethren  of  our  Lord  his  account  of  the 
journey  from  Galilee  to  Jerusalem,  just  preceding 
Christ's  crucifixion.  You  know  there  is  a  passage  of 
almost  nine  chapters  which  is  entirely  peculiar  to  Luke, 
and  which  must  have  been  derived  from  some  constant 
companion  of  our  Lord. 

This  time  of  Luke's  residence  in  Palestine,  during 
the  imprisonment  of  Paul,  is  the  only  time  we  can 
assign  for  the  collection  of  this  material.  During  that 
imprisonment  at  Caesarea  Paul  was  not  rigidly  con- 
fined. His  friends  had  access  to  him ;  and  it  was  dur- 
ing that  time,  if  any,  that  Luke  may  have  had  Paul's 
superintendence  in  his  work  of  putting  the  materials 
of  the  Saviour's  life  into  permanent  and  written  form. 
As  Paul  had  the  prospect  before  him  of  leaving  Pales- 
tine forever  and  of  going  to  his  death  at  Rome,  it 
would  have  been  just  the  time  that  he  would  have 
desired  to  put  into  permanent  form  the  story  of  the 
gospel  that  he  had  been  accustomed  to  preach.     Just 


THE    GOSPEL   ACCORDING    TO    LUKE  89 

at  this  time  we  may  imagine  that  he  would  suggest 
to  Luke  the  composition  of  such  a  Gospel,  and  would 
have  furnished  him  with  such  material  as  was  neces- 
sary upon  his  part. 

Since  the  Gospel  according  to  Luke  was  written 
before  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  (it  was  ''  the  former 
treatise,"  you  remember,  as  Luke  himself  tells  us),  and 
since  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  must  have  been  written 
before  the  close  of  Paul's  first  imprisonment  in  Rome, 
i.  e.,  before  the  year  66,  the  only  time  which  we  can 
properly  assign  to  the  composition  of  the  Gospel  is  the 
year  59.  All  of  the  synoptic  Gospels,  I  think,  may  be 
put  somewhere  between  the  year  55  and  the  year  60; 
and  the  Gospel  according  to  Luke  was  probably  the 
latest  of  the  three. 

This  Gospel  is  a  Pauline  Gospel,  but  not  a  Pauline 
Gospel  in  the  sense  that  Paul  was  himself  the  author 
of  it.  When  Paul,  in  his  Epistles,  speaks  of  *'  my 
gospel,"  I  suppose  he  speaks  of  the  oral  gospel  which 
he  preached,  and  not  of  any  Gospel  which  he,  himself, 
wrote  out;  nor  do  I  suppose  that  Paul  was  the  author 
of  this  Gospel  in  the  sense  of  dictating  it  to  Luke. 
There  is  too  much  difference  in  style  between  Paul  and 
Luke  to  warrant  any  such  hypothesis. 

Irenseus,  one  of  the  early  Christian  Fathers,  says 
that  Luke,  the  follower  of  Paul,  set  down  in  a  book  the 
gospel  which  Paul  preached.  Tertullian,  another  Chris- 
tian Father,  a  little  later  tells  us  that  Paul  was  the 
illuminator  of  Luke,  i.  e.,  Paul  furnished  his  material 
in  a  large  part  to  Luke ;  and  he  also  says  that  Luke's 
digest  was  commonly  attributed  to  Paul,  i.  e.,  it  was 
attributed  to  Paul  as  the  suggester  and  furnisher  of 


90  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

the  material.  There  are  many  things  in  the  purpose 
and  air  of  Paul's  Epistles,  Paul's  speeches  in  the  Acts, 
and  the  Gospel  according  to  Luke,  which  makes  such 
a  Pauline  relation  exceedingly  probable.  It  is  prob- 
able, I  think,  that  Paul  suggested  to  Luke,  his  com- 
panion and  physician,  the  writing  of  the  Gospel.  It  is 
probable  that  he  superintended  it,  that  to  a  large  extent 
he  furnished  material  for  it,  and  that  it  finally  went 
forth  with  his  sanction;  and  we  have  reason  to  believe 
that  the  Saviour's  promise  of  inspiration,  which  be- 
longed to  the  apostle  Paul,  belonged  also  to  the  evan- 
gelist Luke,  because  he  was  the  representative  of  Paul. 
Paul  himself  speaks  of  Luke  as  the  beloved  physi- 
cian, i.  e.,  one  to  whom  he  was  bound  by  very  tender 
ties;  bound  by  gratitude,  perhaps,  for  help  rendered 
to  him  in  his  physical  infirmities;  bound,  perhaps,  by 
sympathy  of  nature  and  spirit,  and  by  the  many  serv- 
ices that  had  been  rendered  to  him  in  his  journeys  and 
in  his  imprisonment.  There  is  one  of  whom  Paul  says 
that  his  praise  is  in  all  the  churches,  and  that  one  is 
thought  by  many  to  be  Luke.  In  writing  to  Timothy, 
during  his  imprisonment  in  Rome,  Paul  says,  "  Only 
Luke  is  with  me  " ;  as  if  Luke  was  the  last  one  that 
remained  with  the  apostle  in  his  time  of  trial.  All  these 
things  give  us  reason  to  believe  that  Luke  had  many 
qualifications  of  mind  and  heart  that  drew  him  close 
to  the  apostle,  and  made  him  the  proper  representa- 
tive of  Paul  in  the  putting  of  his  Gospel  into  perma- 
nent and  written  form.  In  fact,  they  were  so  closely 
related  to  one  another  in  the  view  of  the  early  church 
that  Marcion,  the  Gnostic  and  enemy  of  Judaism,  one 
who  believed   that   the   Old   Testament   God   was   a 


THE    GOSPEL   ACCORDING    TO    LUKE  9I 

restricted  divinity  belonging  to  Palestine  alone,  and 
who  held  to  the  antagonism  between  the  Old  and  the 
New  Testament  God — Marcion  accepted  no  Gospel  but 
the  Gospel  according  to  Luke ;  and  even  out  of  that  he 
cut  those  parts  that  had  any  Hebraistic  relation — such 
as  the  first  and  second  chapters  and  quite  a  portion 
between  the  third  and  fourth  chapters.  Marcion  threw 
away  all  the  Hebraistic  portion  of  Luke's  Gospel,  and 
accepted  the  rest  as  the  only  Gospel  that  was  worthy 
of  credence,  or  the  only  one,  at  any  rate,  adapted  to  his 
views ;  and  then  he  threw  away  all  the  rest  of  the  New 
Testament  except  ten  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul;  accept- 
ing the  Pauline  Gospel  and  the  chief  Pauline  Epistles 
simply  because  they  represent  the  gospel  as  it  was 
preached  to  the  Gentiles  and  possibly  what  we  may  call 
the  Gentile  element  in  the  church.  By  this,  Marcion 
indicates  very  clearly  how  close  the  relationship  w^as 
between  Luke  and  the  apostle  Paul ;  and  yet  I  suppose 
we  are  not  to  imagine,  for  a  moment,  that  the  rela- 
tionship was  one  of  simple  dictation.  There  was  just 
as  much  independence  in  the  construction  of  Luke's 
Gospel  as  we  have  seen  to  have  existed  in  the  case  of 
the  construction  of  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew 
and  the  Gospel  according  to  Mark. 

All  that  I  have  said  up  to  this  point  has  been  in- 
tended simply  to  prepare  the  way  for  a  presentation 
of  the  general  character  of  the  Gospel  according  to 
Luke.  You  can  see  at  once  that  in  its  author  (not  a 
Jew,  but  a  proselyte  from  the  Gentiles,  a  Gentile  Chris- 
tian), in  the  furnisher  of  its  material  (Paul  the  apostle 
to  the  Gentiles),  the  Gospel  according  to  Luke  occu- 
pies a  wider  horizon,  it  has  a  larger  aim  than  either 


92  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

of  the  Gospels  that  have  preceded.  If  you  can  call 
the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew  a  Gospel  written  for 
Jewish  Christians,  then  you  may  call  the  Gospel  ac- 
cording to  Luke  written  for  Gentile  Christians.  If  you 
can  call  the  Gospel  according  to  Mark  the  Gospel 
written  for  the  Romans,  then  you  can  call  the  Gospel 
according  to  Luke  the  Gospel  written  for  the  Greeks; 
and  as  Greek  was  at  that  time  the  literary  language  of 
the  whole  Roman  Empire,  and  as  men  wrote  Greek  in 
Rome  as  well  as  in  Athens,  this  Gospel  according  to 
Luke,  in  some  respects,  was  better  adapted  to  univer- 
sal and  rapid  circulation  than  either  of  the  others. 

This  breadth,  this  application  to  universal  humanity 
is  the  characteristic  of  Luke.  There  is  no  Jewish 
exclusiveness  in  Luke;  nothing,  for  example,  like  the 
confining  of  the  lineage  of  Jesus  to  the  seed  of  David 
and  the  seed  of  Abraham.  The  genealogy  in  Luke 
takes  us  back  to  Adam,  the  father  of  the  race ;  "  the 
Son  of  man  "  is  set  before  us  here.  It  is  Christ  in  his 
largest  human  relations.  We  have  his  connection  with 
humanity  continually  brought  before  us  in  the  ac- 
count of  his  birth  and  his  growth  in  wisdom  and  in 
stature,  as  well  as  in  favor  of  God  and  man.  You  find 
that  this  humanity  of  Jesus,  the  fact  that  he  was  a  man 
like  all  of  us,  is  the  dominant  thought  of  the  Gospel. 
Luke  brings  into  view  the  universal  human  relations  of 
our  Lord.  If  the  Gospel  according  to  John  presents 
to  us  the  divine  side  of  the  Saviour's  person,  the  Gospel 
according  to  Luke  presents  to  us  the  human  side  of  our 
Saviour's  person;  and  so  we  find  that,  in  Luke,  we 
have  the  gospel  history  linked  in,  more  than  any  other 
Gospel  links  it  in,  with  the  events  of  profane  history. 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING   TO   LUKE  93 

It  is  Luke,  and  none  of  the  other  Evangelists,  that 
gives  us  chronological  data  which  enable  us  to  fix 
the  time  at  which  various  events  occurred,  gives  us 
the  names  of  the  different  rulers  of  the  surrounding 
states,  and  so  enables  us  to  fit  this  history  into  what 
we  know  of  profane  history  outside;  and  then  there 
are  many  things  with  regard  to  the  humanity  of  Christ 
which  are  brought  very  beautifully  into  view  in  this 
Gospel,  which  we  find  nowhere  else ;  such,  for  example, 
as  that  remarkable  incident,  the  only  incident  that  is 
related  to  us  during  the  whole  of  the  thirty  years  of 
Christ's  life. .  At  the  age  of  twelve  years  he  goes  up 
to  the  temple,  and  there  is  found  by  his  parents  listen- 
ing to  the  doctors  of  the  law,  asking  them  questions 
and  giving  them  answers.  That  incident,  which  seems 
to  mark  the  point  of  time  where  Jesus  first  became 
conscious  of  the  fact  that  he  was  the  Sent  of  God,  the 
Son  of  God,  is  related  to  us  by  Luke  only. 

We  have  only  from  Luke  the  information  that, 
after  the  temptation,  Satan  departed  from  him  for  a 
season;  in  other  words,  that  there  was  an  interval 
before  Satan  came  back  again  with  power  to  tempt  him 
in  the  garden. 

It  is  only  Luke  who  tells  us  of  the  miraculous 
draught  of  fishes  which  accompanied  the  calling  of  the 
disciples.  It  is  only  Luke  that  tells  us  about  the  first 
missionary  journey  of  the  Seventy.  Luke's  miracles 
are  miracles  in  which  our  Saviour  appears  as  the 
Great  Physician,  as  the  Healer  of  lost  and  diseased 
humanity.  The  miracle  wrought  for  the  ten  lepers  is 
told  us  only  by  Luke ;  it  is  Luke  only  who  speaks  of  the 
conversations  of  Christ  with  Moses  and  Elias  at  the 


94  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

transfiguration.  It  is  only  Luke  who  tells  us  of  Christ's 
weeping  over  Jerusalem.  It  is  only  Luke  who  tells  us 
of  the  healing  of  Malchus'  ear  by  the  Saviour  in  the 
garden.  It  is  only  Luke  who  records  for  us  our  Sa- 
viour's prayer  as  his  enemies  nailed  him  to  the  cross, 
"  Father,  forgive  them,  for  they  know  not  what  they 
do."  It  is  only  Luke  that  tells  us  of  the  promise  to 
the  repentant  thief,  "  This  day  shalt  thou  be  with  me 
in  paradise."  Luke  alone  tells  us  that,  after  the  cru- 
cifixion had  taken  place  and  the  Saviour  had  breathed 
his  last,  the  multitudes  present  returned  to  Jerusalem, 
beating  their  breasts.  These  things  draw  us  near  to 
Christ;  they  identify  Christ  with  our  common  hu- 
manity ;  they  appeal  to  our  sympathy.  There  is  pathos 
in  them,  because  we  see  in  them  evidence  that  Christ 
is  really  one  of  us,  a  man  like  ourselves. 

The  discourses  of  Christ  are  intended,  all  of  them, 
to  produce  this  same  impression  upon  us.  It  is  only 
Luke  who  tells  us  about  that  first  discourse  in  Naza- 
reth, his  early  home,  where  Christ  offers  his  gospel 
first  of  all  to  his  own  townspeople,  and  especially  makes 
his  preaching  there  the  fulfilment  of  Isaiah's  promise 
that  the  gospel  should  be  preached  to  all  those  in  suf- 
fering and  sorrow.  It  is  only  Luke  who  tells  us  of 
the  parable  of  the  Importunate  Widow,  and  the  cer- 
tainty that  the  Judge  on  high  will  answer  our  prayers, 
as  the  unjust  judge  answered  that  widow's  prayers. 
Only  Luke  gives  us  the  parable  of  the  Unrighteous 
Steward,  the  parable  of  the  Ten  Pounds,  of  the  Fig 
Tree  upon  which  so  much  care  is  bestowed  and  to 
which  so  much  grace  is  shown  before  it  is  finally  cut 
down   and  burned   up.     Luke  alone   tells   us   of  the 


THE    GOSPEL   ACCORDING    TO    LUKE  95 

parable  of  the  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus ;  and  finally  and 
above  all,  it  is  only  Luke  that  gives  us  that  trinity  of 
parables :  the  Lost  Sheep,  the  Lost  Piece  of  Money,  and 
the  Prodigal  Son ;  that  parable  that  perhaps  more  than 
any  other  of  all  the  Gospels  opens  to  us  the  fatherly, 
human  love  of  the  heart  of  God.  The  parable  of  the 
Prodigal  Son  is  given  to  us  only  in  the  Gospel  of 
Luke. 

How  much  we  owe  to  Luke's  Gospel,  the  Gospel  of 
the  humanity  of  our  Lord,  the  Gospel  that  brings  us 
close  to  the  sympathizing  Saviour,  one  who  is  touched 
with  the  feeling  of  our  infirmities ! 

Luke  is  the  Evangelist  who  tells  about  our  Saviour's 
praying.  Run  through  the  Gospel  of  Luke  and  you 
will  see  that  it  puts  our  Saviour  in  the  attitude  of  a 
human  suppliant  as  no  other  Gospel  does.  At  Jesus' 
baptism  God  parts  the  heavens  and  descends  like  a 
dove  on  the  Saviour,  as  the  answer  to  his  prayer. 
Christ  prays  all  night  long  before  he  calls  his  twelve 
apostles.  Christ  prays  on  the  Mount  of  Transfigura- 
tion; and  it  is  after  his  prayer  that  the  glory  of  God 
overshadows  him  and  he  appears  as  the  bearer,  so  to 
speak,  of  the  Shekinah;  and  then  it  is  in  the  garden, 
where  Christ  is  praying,  in  Gethsemane,  as  Luke,  and 
Luke  only,  states,  that  the  sweat  flows  from  his  body 
in  great  drops  of  blood,  in  the  agony  of  his  supplica- 
tion. All  these  things  bring  us  close  to  Christ  as  a 
human  Redeemer  and  sympathizing  Saviour;  and  so 
Luke  gives  us  not  only  the  Gospel  of  humanity,  so  far 
as  Christ  and  the  representation  of  his  person  are 
concerned,  but  he  also  gives  us  the  Gospel  that,  in 
some  respects,  is  best  adapted  to  meet  all  men  upon 


g6  THE    BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

their  own  level  and  commend  itself  to  all  who  are 
suffering. 

There  was  an  old  tradition  that  Luke  was  a  painter. 
I  have  seen  many  pictures  in  European  galleries  in 
which  Luke  is  represented  as  painting  pictures  of  our 
Lord,  of  Mary  the  Virgin,  or  of  the  various  apostles, 
or  where  the  picture  itself  is  attributed  to  Luke.  There 
are  such  pictures  still  among  the  relics  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  churches  abroad.  This  tradition  has  an  ex- 
ceedingly slight  foundation.  We  have  no  reliable 
authority  for  supposing  that  Luke  was  an  actual 
painter  upon  canvas.  Probably  some  other  painter  of 
later  time,  whose  name  was  similar,  was  confounded 
with  Luke  the  Evangelist;  and  so  this  tradition  grew 
up.  Although  Luke  was  not  a  painter  upon  canvas, 
he  was  a  painter  with  his  pen,  and  no  other  Evangelist 
has  given  us  so  clear  and  so  beautiful  a  picture  of  the 
human  Christ  as  Luke.  No  other  Evangelist  has  told 
us  so  much  about  the  Virgin  Mary  as  Luke  has  told  us. 

It  is  a  very  remarkable  fact  that,  although  Luke  is 
the  most  classical  of  the  New  Testament  writers  when 
he  is  using  his  own  style,  when  he  is  telling  the  things 
he  has  observed — one  might  say  that  the  preface  to  his 
Gospel  is  most  nearly  like  classical  Greek  of  any  por- 
tion of  equal  extent  we  have  in  the  New  Testament — 
yet  when  he  comes  to  the  second  and  third  chapters 
of  his  own  Gospel,  and  is  using  Hebrew  documents 
which  have  come  into  his  possession,  he  follows  them 
word  for  word,  and  they  are  so  Hebraistic  in  their 
style  that  you  might  almost  think  they  had  been  written 
by  the  Evangelist  Matthew.  The  spirit  of  faithful- 
ness to  his  material  leads  him  to  give  over  any  attempt 


THE    GOSPEL    ACCORDING    TO    LUKE  97 

to  manipulate  what  comes  to  his  hands.  He  gives  it 
to  us  just  as  it  came  to  him;  so  the  Gospel  according 
to  Luke  shows  throughout  the  spirit  of  faithfulness  to 
the  truth,  combined  with  a  great  deal  of  what  you 
might  call  human  interest,  breadth  of  view,  and  love 
for  humanity  at  large.  To  Luke  Christ  is  the  Light 
to  enlighten  the  Gentiles,  and  all  men  are  the  objects 
of  his  saving  and  redeeming  work.  When  Luke  comes 
to  paint  the  various  apostles,  he  paints  them  with  a 
human  interest  that  is  very  well  worthy  of  a  master 
in  the  art. 

Luke  was  not,  then,  a  painter  upon  canvas,  but  he 
was  a  painter  with  his  pen;  and  of  all  the  pictures  in 
the  four  Gospels  that  are  given  us  of  the  life  and  work 
of  Christ,  there  is  not  one  that  we  should  value  more 
highly,  that  we  should  study  more  closely,  from  which 
we  can  get  more  benefit  in  our  daily,  spiritual  life  than 
we  can  from  this  Gospel  according  to  Luke. 

We  have  next  Sunday  the  contrast  to  all  this.  I 
trust  that  a  review  of  these  four  Gospels  will  bring  to 
our  minds  what  perhaps  has  never  been  brought  be- 
fore us  so  clearly  before,  the  great  variety  that  exists 
in  these  various  pictures  of  the  life  and  work  of 
Christ;  and  the  last  of  them,  the  Gospel  according  to 
John,  the  Gospel  of  the  divinity,  as  this  one  to-day  is 
the  Gospel  of  the  humanity,  is  in  many  respects  the 
most  sublime  and  most  wonderful  of  them  all. 


THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN 

There  were  two  brothers  in  the  apostolic  age,  one  of 
whom  was  the  first  martyr  for  the  faith,  and  the  other 
of  whom  lived  on  to  the  very  end  of  the  first  century 
and  died  the  very  last  of  the  apostles.  Those  two 
brothers  were  James  and  John.  John  and  James  were 
the  sons  of  Zebedee.  Zebedee  was  a  fisherman  of  Beth- 
saida,  in  Galilee,  a  man  well-to-do,  apparently;  for  we 
are  told  that  he  had  hired  servants.  Salome,  his  wife, 
perhaps  after  the  death  of  her  husband,  was  one  of 
those  women  who  followed  Jesus  in  his  preaching 
tours  through  Palestine  and  ministered  to  him  of  her 
substance. 

John  was  known  to  the  high  priest,  and  it  was  he 
who  afterward  took  care  of  our  Lord's  mother,  accord- 
ing to  his  commands,  until  her  death,  as  tradition  re- 
lates; all  of  which  Is  more  easy  to  understand  if  we 
suppose  that  he  was  a  man  of  some  means,  and  more 
intelligible  still  if  the  tradition  be  true  that  Salome, 
his  mother,  was  a  sister  of  Mary  the  Virgin.  In  fact, 
John  may  have  lived  and  studied  in  Jerusalem  at  the 
school  of  the  rabbins  long  before  his  discipleship  began. 
But  we  read  of  him  first  in  connection  with  Andrew 
at  the  Jordan,  where  the  Baptist  is  preaching.  The 
great  preacher  of  reformation  points  to  Jesus,  the  Lamb 
of  God,  his  Lord  and  theirs,  and  they  all  leave  the 
Baptist  and  follow  the  Saviour. 

It  appears  that  John  and  James  were  admitted  into 

98 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING    TO    JOHN  QQ 

an  intimacy  with  Christ  enjoyed  by  no  other  of  the 
apostles  except  Peter.  These  three  we  find  in  the  inner 
chamber  where  the  ruler's  daughter  lies  dead,  present 
at  that  wonderful  exhibition  of  power  in  her  resurrec- 
tion to  life ;  we  find  them  on  the  Mount  of  Transfigura- 
tion, beholding  the  glory  of  Christ ;  we  find  them  with 
our  Saviour  in  Gethsemane,  in  the  depths  of  his  suffer- 
ing; and  Peter  and  John  were  among  the  very  first 
witnesses  of  our  Saviour's  resurrection.  At  the  time 
that  our  Lord  was  apprehended  in  Gethsemane,  John, 
with  the  Other  disciples,  forsook  him  and  fled;  but 
he  seems  to  have  overcome  his  fears  and  to  have  made 
his  way  courageously  to  the  judgment-hall.  He  was 
present  during  the  trial  of  Christ;  he  was  present 
during  the  crucifix:ion;  there  he  received  the  Lord's 
command  to  take  charge  of  his  mother.  He  became 
from  that  time  the  adopted  son  of  the  Virgin,  and  he 
cared  for  her  until  her  death. 

Until  the  close  of  the  narrative  in  the  Gospels,  and 
in  the  Acts  as  well,  we  find  John  always  in  company 
with  Peter.  He  was  at  Jerusalem,  as  Paul  tells  us,  at 
the  close  of  his  narrative,  and  was  one  of  those  who 
gave  right  hands  of  fellowship  to  the  Gentiles;  and, 
remaining  in  Jerusalem  for  twenty  or  twenty-five  years 
after  the  death  of  Christ,  he  was  engaged  in  minister- 
ing to  the  Jews  or  the  Jewish  Christians.  When  the 
apostle  Paul  ceased  his  labors  and  Peter  had  suffered 
martyrdom,  the  great  church  at  Ephesus  and  the  other 
churches  in  Asia  Minor  needed  apostolic  supervision; 
and  then,  in  the  prospect  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem, John  left  Palestine,  went  to  Ephesus,  and  there 
remained  until  his  death,  which  took  place  probably  at 


lOO  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

the  very  end  of  the  century.  It  was  98  or  99,  perhaps 
100,  before  the  apostle  John  died. 

There  was  one  interval,  an  interval  of  persecution, 
an  interval  of  exile  under  Nero,  about  the  year  67  or 
68,  when  John  the  apostle  was  banished  to  Patmos,  a 
wretched  rock  in  the  ^gean  Sea,  and  there  the  Apoca- 
lypse was  written  and  sent  to  the  seven  churches  of 
Asia  Minor ;  but  with  that  single  exception,  John  was  a 
resident  of  Ephesus  until  he  died. 

The  personal  characteristics  of  the  apostle  John  are 
exceedingly  striking;  and  it  is  impossible  to  under- 
stand the  Gospel  unless  we  know  something  about  the 
man.  John  had  two  remarkable  characteristics.  In 
the  first  place,  he  was  a  rhan  of  intuitive  perception. 
He  was  not  a  man  of  logic.  It  has  frequently  been 
said  that  John  never  argues,  he  always  affirms.  John 
has  all  the  natural  predisposition  of  a  seer.  One 
might  say  he  was  a  born  prophet,  as  far  as  man  can 
be  born  a  prophet.  By  his  natural  temperament  and 
organization  he  was  fitted  for  the  work  of  prophesying. 
The  eagle,  among  the  cherubic  figures,  has  always  been 
assigned  to  John  as  his  proper  symbol,  the  eagle  that 
can  gaze  undazed  upon  the  brightness  of  the  sun,  that 
can  soar  aloft  higher  than  any  other  winged  creature, 
and  from  that  height  can  see  the  fish  in  the  very  depths 
of  the  sea.  That  was  the  description  of  John  given 
by  the  church  Fathers,  and  there  is  something  very 
characteristic,  striking,  and  correct  in  it  all.  John  was 
a  man  of  intuitive  discernment,  but  he  was  a  man  of 
deep  and  ardent  affections.  That  was  the  second  char- 
acteristic. A  man  of  fiery  mind,  a  man  of  fiery  zeal, 
great  warmth,  and  fervor  of  temperament,  he  joined 


THE    GOSPEL   ACCORDING    TO    JOHN  lOI 

to  some  of  the  very  highest  intellectual  qualifications, 
the  faculties  of  insight  and  of  spiritual  perception,  the 
deepest  and  most  ardent  love.  He  was  one  who  from 
his  nature  and  fervid  temperament  was  in  danger  of 
being  biased.  This  warmth  and  ardor,  if  it  is  undisci- 
plined arid  untrained,  may  make  a  man  a  mere  parti- 
san ;  and  this  warm  temperament,  these  strong  impulses, 
had  to  be  checked  and  disciplined.  You  remember  that 
when  John  and  James  were  commissioned  by  Christ  to 
precede  him,  as  he  was  going  to  Jerusalem,  and  the 
Samaritans  refused  him  a  night's  lodging,  John  and 
James  thought  it  was  quite  a  proper  time  for  our  Sa- 
viour to  do  as  Elijah  had  done  before  him,  and  they 
asked,  "  Lord,  shall  we  call  down  fire  from  heaven  upon 
them?"  It  indicated  the  fiery  indignation  of  these 
two  men. 

Some  years  ago  I  asked  my  child  how  she  knew  the 
apostle  John  in  the  pictures.  "  Oh,"  she  said,  "  I 
always  know  John  because  he  has  long  hair  and  looks 
like  a  woman."  I  suppose  that  idea  of  the  apostle 
John  is  very  prevalent  in  the  church.  John  is  thought 
to  be  the  disciple  of  love,  and  often  love  is  thought  to 
be  weakness.  How  very  different  from  that  is  the 
truth !  Why,  John  and  James  were  Boanerges,  "  sons 
of  thunder."  They  were  full  of  hot  indignation  against 
wrong.  No  weakness  there.  But  that  hot  indignation 
was  subdued,  that  warmth  of  temperament  was  disci- 
plined by  the  rebukes  of  Christ  and  by  the  sorrows 
through  which  they  passed,  until  at  last  John  became 
the  disciple  of  love.  John  in  his  last  days  was  con- 
tinually repeating,  as  the  tradition  relates,  "  Little  chil- 
dren, love  one  another."     Love  is  the  solvent  of  all 


I02  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

difficulties.  Love,  and  all  other  things  shall  be  added 
to  it. 

It  is  said  of  Charles  II  that  he  was  a  man  utterly 
incapable  of  gratitude  for  benefits  received,  and  utterly 
incapable  of  indignation  for  wrongs  done  him.  The 
only  emotion  of  which  he  seemed  to  be  capable  was  the 
emotion  of  contempt.  An  absolute  incapacity  for  in- 
dignation against  moral  evil  was  his  chief  character- 
istic. There  is  no  feature  of  human  character  that  so 
indicates  absolute  worthlessness  in  the  sight  of  God  as 
the  incapacity  to  hate  that  which  is  wrong.  And  why  ? 
Because  hatred  of  wrong  is  the  necessary  correlative 
of  love  for  the  right.  Do  not  tell  me  that  a  man  loves 
virtue  and  purity,  in  whom  a  deed  of  shameful  impurity 
and  injustice  awakens  no  moral  revulsion.  Now  the 
depth  and  strength  of  John's  love  showed  itself  in  his 
power  to  hate  that  which  was  evil ;  and,  therefore,  you 
will  find  that  in  John's  Gospel  and  in  John's  Epistles, 
combined  with  this  deep,  this  earnest  affection,  there 
is  at  the  same  time  a  power  of  moral  indignation.  ''  Ye 
that  love  the  Lord  hate  evil."  "  Be  ye  angry,"  that  is 
the  command  of  God,  "and  sin  not!"  Let  not  per- 
sonal, private,  passionate  feeling  mingle  with  your 
anger;  but  calm  and  judicial  indignation  against  moral 
evil  is  absolutely  inseparable  from  a  true  Christian 
character. 

Here,  then,  were  the  two  great  characteristics  of 
John  the  apostle.  He  was  first,  a  man  of  marvelous 
intuitive  insight;  and  then  secondly,  that  vast  intel- 
lectual endowment  was  balanced  and  interfused  in 
every  part  with  a  depth  and  fervor  of  Christian  love; 
and  it  was  intellectual  power,  enlightened  and  made 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING    TO    JOHN  IO3 

energetic  by  love,  that  made  John  capable  of  recogni- 
zing the  wonderful  truths  that  he,  better  than  any  other 
of  the  apostles,  has  proclaimed  to  us.  It  was  this  in- 
tellectual insight,  lit  up  by  deep  Christian  feeling,  that 
enabled  him  to  comprehend,  as  none  other  of  the 
apostles  did  comprehend,  the  greatness  and  glory  of 
the  person  of  Jesus,  the  incarnate  Word  of  God;  and 
then  it  was  this  intellectual  power,  lit  up  by  deep  feel- 
ing, which  enabled  him,  better  than  any  other  of  the 
apostles,  to  understand  that  union  between  Christ  and 
the  Father,  and  that  union  between  Christ  and  the 
believer,  of  which  we  should  know  so  much  less  if  we 
did  not  have  the  Gospel  according  to  John. 

John  the  apostle  was  the  author  of  the  Gospel.  I  do 
not  need  to  go  through  a  process  of  proof,  although 
this  is  a  question  very  much  disputed  in  later  times. 
There  is  argument  which  to  my  mind  is  absolutely  con- 
vincing, and  which  to  any  candid  mind  ought  to  carry 
most  perfect  conviction.  The  author  of  that  Gospel 
was  certainly  a  Jew;  the  author  of  that  Gospel  was  a 
Jew  familiar  with  Palestine;  the  author  of  that  Gos- 
pel was  one  of  the  apostles,  because  he  tells  of  dis- 
cussions in  the  narrowest  of  the  apostolic  circles,  and 
of  secret  retreats  of  the  apostles,  as  only  an  apostle 
could  do.  He  was  not  only  an  apostle,  but  he  was  one 
of  the  sons  of  Zebedee.  It  is  very  curious  that  where 
the  names  of  the  apostles  are  mentioned  in  order,  the 
order  is  not  the  same  as  that  given  in  the  first  three 
Gospels.  There  John  and  James  are  mentioned  first. 
When  John  in  his  Gospel  comes  to  mention  their 
names,  the  sons  of  Zebedee  come  always  last.  The 
modesty  of  the  apostle  is  in  itself  a  signature  to  the 


104  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Gospel.  Though  he  never  mentions  his  own  name,  and 
only  speaks  of  himself  now  and  then  as  the  disciple 
whom  Jesus  loved,  it  is  very  evident  that  he,  and  he 
only,  is  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  We  have  in 
the  Gospel  itself  direct  declarations  that  this  is  the 
apostle  who  has  seen  and  witnessed  these  things. 

Then  we  have  the  testimony  of  the  church  Fathers, 
which  I  need  not  narrate  to  you,  although  there  is  a 
great  abundance.  Papias,  one  of  the  earliest  of  them, 
says  that  John,  who  leaned  upon  the  Saviour's  breast, 
when  in  Ephesus  wrote  the  Gospel  which  bears  his 
name ;  and  the  Gnostics  of  the  second  century  not  only 
knew  of  the  Gospel,  but  recognized  the  fact  of  its 
genuineness;  although  at  the  same  time  they  did  not 
accept  many  of  its  declarations.  All  this  external 
evidence,  however,  would  not  be  so  convincing  if  we 
were  not  able  to  remove  two  objections  which  have 
been  made  to  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel.  It  is 
said,  for  example,  that  it  is  impossible  the  author  of 
the  Gospel  should  be  the  same  person  who  wrote  the 
Apocalypse,  for  the  Apocalypse  is  written  in  a  very 
different  style.  The  Apocalypse  shows  a  very  imper- 
fect knowledge  of  the  Greek  language,  unfamiliarity 
with  the  laws  of  Greek  composition,  and  the  spirit  of 
the  Apocalypse  is  very  decidedly  different  from  the 
spirit  of  the  Gospel.  My  answer  to  this  is  that  up  to 
about  the  year  60,  or  65  perhaps,  John  lived  in  Pales- 
tine, and  John  was  a  Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews.  It  has 
been  said  that  he  put  the  Hebrew  soul  into  the  Greek 
language.  He  probably  was  accustomed  from  his 
youth  to  the  use  of  the  Aramaic.  Greek  was  not  his 
mother  tongue,  nor  did  he  in  Palestine  constantly  use 


THE    GOSPEL   ACCORDING    TO    JOHN  IO5 

Greek.  He  goes  to  Ephesus.  There,  or  immediately 
after,  at  Patmos,  the  Apocalypse  is  written — written 
at  the  time  when  he  is  more  familiar  with  Hebrew 
than  he  is  with  Greek.  Hebrew  constructions  appear 
in  the  Apocalypse.  There  are  infelicities,  not  to  say 
inaccuracies,  of  grammar.  One  of  the  Greek  preposi- 
tions that  is  naturally  followed  by  the  genitive  is 
actually  followed  by  the  nominative  in  the  Greek  which 
John  writes.  Yet,  at  the  same  time,  you  find  that  this 
energetic,  fiery  spirit  which  the  Gospels  would  lead  us 
to  attribute  to  John,  is  precisely  the  spirit  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse, written  just  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
and  in  view  of  the  coming  doom  of  the  holy  city.  Its 
predictions  and  prophecies  of  coming  wrath  are  pre- 
cisely the  production  which  we  should  expect  from 
John's  mind  at  that  particular  time.  Thirty  years  pass 
away.  Jerusalem  has  fallen.  There  is  no  longer  any 
prophecy  of  this  sort  to  utter.  During  that  time  John 
is  softened ;  age  has  come  upon  him ;  he  has  become  a 
gentle  and  loving  old  man ;  and,  as  the  tradition  which 
attributes  to  him  this  constant  inculcation  of  the  duty 
of  love  is  probably  a  true  one,  it  is  very  natural  to  sup- 
pose that  thirty  years  after,  when  he  writes  the  Gospel, 
his  style  should  differ  from  his  early  style  in  these  two 
particulars.  In  the  first  place,  Greek  has  now  become 
to  him  his  mother  tongue,  as  it  were ;  Greek  is  now  as 
familiar  as  Hebrew  was  before.  A  man's  style  changes 
very  much  in  the  course  of  years. 

If  I  were  to  say  that  because  the  editorials  of  George 
William  Curtis,  in  ''  Harper's  Weekly,"  were  so  solid, 
so  calm,  so  statesmanlike,  he  could  not  possibly  have 
written  that  fervid,  eloquent,  and  poetic  style  that  I 


I06  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

found  in  the  ''  Potiphar  Papers  "  so  many  years  ago,  I 
should  simply  show  that  I  did  not  know  the  possibili- 
ties of  change  in  one's  literary  style  during  the  long 
course  of  a  human  life.  Just  so,  if  I  should  say,  be- 
cause John  in  the  Gospel  writes  a  smooth,  flowing, 
correct  Greek  style,  he  could  not  have  written  the 
Apocalypse,  I  should  show  an  equal  ignorance  of  the 
laws  of  human  nature. 

The  Gospel,  therefore,  was  written  far  away  from 
Palestine,  at  a  time  that  was  remote  from  the  events 
which  were  recorded.  It  was  written  out  of  John's 
memory,  but  yet  it  was  written  under  the  guidance 
and  inspiration  of  that  Spirit  which  was  promised  to 
bring  all  things  to  remembrance,  and  which  enabled 
John  not  only  to  recall  what  Jesus  had  uttered,  even 
when  Jesus'  discourses  were  long,  but  also  gave  John 
an  insight  into  the  meaning  of  Jesus'  words.  And  this 
suggests  the  second  objection  "which  is  urged  against 
John's  authorship.  It  is  said  that  these  long  discourses 
attributed  to  Jesus  are  not  only  beyond  the  power  of 
human  memory  to  reproduce,  but  are  manifestly  the 
work  of  some  later  author  who  mixes  his  own  words 
with  those  of  our  Lord,  so  that  there  is  no  telling  where 
the  words  of  Jesus  end  and  the  words  of  the  Evangelist 
begin.  We  must  concede  that  there  is  a  problem  here. 
But  the  key  is  in  our  hands  if  we  remember  Jesus' 
promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  There  was  a  natural 
preparation  of  the  apostle  for  his  work.  He  had  been 
trained  in  the  synagogue  and  possibly  in  the  rabbinic 
schools.  He  had  been  accustomed  to  memorize  and  to 
repeat  the  Scriptures.  Doctor  Bruce  maintained  that 
the  apostles  could  all  of  them  reproduce  the  whole  Old 


THE    GOSPEL   ACCORDING    TO    JOHN  10/ 

Testament  from  memory.  John's  insight  and  affection 
made  the  retention  and  recall  of  Jesus'  words  the  joy 
and  comfort  of  his  life.  His  preaching  made  this  re- 
production more  and  more  clear  and  effective.  Little 
by  little  the  non-essential  was  purged  away,  till  only 
the  substantial  remained.  And  the  living  Spirit  of 
Jesus  was  with  his  apostle,  according  to  Jesus'  promise, 
correcting,  explaining,  and  even,  when  necessary,  add- 
ing to  the  material  in  John's  mind,  so  that  his  Gospel 
is  a  truthful  representation  of  Jesus'  owm  mind  and 
heart.  If  he  adds  to  what  our  Lord  originally  spoke, 
he  does  this  under  the  inspiration  and  authority  of 
Christ  himself,  and  in  his  Gospel  we  have  our  Lord 
himself  speaking  to  us. 

Remember  that  John  writes  long  after  the  Synoptists. 
You  find,  therefore,  that  there  is  absolutely  no  refer- 
ence to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  for  all  this  had 
taken  place  already.  You  find  that  the  apostle  writes 
of  things  in  Palestine,  as  if  he  were  in  the  midst  of 
people  who  knew  but  little  of  Palestine.  You  find 
that,  when  he  speaks  of  the  feasts,  he  does  not  speak 
of  the  feasts  as  a  Hebrew  would,  but  calls  them  the 
"  feasts  of  the  Jews  " ;  and  you  find  that,  when  he 
uses  the  word  "rabbi,"  he  must  needs  interpret:  "it 
being  interpreted,  is  teacher."  When  he  uses  the  word 
"  Messiah,"  he  says,  "  it  being  interpreted,  is  Christ  " ; 
and  when  he  comes  to  speak  of  the  Samaritans,  he  must 
say,  "  the  Jews  have  no  dealings  with  the  Samaritans." 
All  this  would  be  unnecessary  unless  he  w^ere  far  away 
from  Palestine,  and  were  writing  to  people  to  whom 
these  things  were  unfamiliar.  Then  it  is  also  the  fact 
that  the  writer  seems  to  be  acquainted  with  the  synoptic 


I08  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Gospels;  otherwise  I  think  it  is  inexpHcable  how  he, 
of  all  men,  should  omit  any  account  of  the  transfigura- 
tion, as  he  does ;  and  it  is  also  curious  that  John,  when 
he  makes  allusion  to  certain  of  the  events  which  are 
mentioned  by  the  Synoptists,  should  do  so  with  the 
addition  of  new  material,  should  put  the  evidence  in 
a  new  light,  should  put  them  to  a  new  use;  which 
evidently  shows  that  he  has  his  own  purpose  and 
object  in  thus  referring  to  them.  The  miracle  of  the 
five  thousand,  for  example,  which  appears  in  the  Synop- 
tists, is  given  us  in  detail  by  John;  but  you  find  that 
the  object  with  John  is  just  the  object  that  he  has  in 
his  relation  of  other  miracles,  namely,  to  speak  of 
them  as  signs  or  symbols  of  great  truths.  The  multi- 
plying of  the  bread  was  not  detailed  simply  in  order 
that  we  might  get  before  us  the  power  of  Jesus,  but  in 
order  that  Christ  might  be  presented  to  us  as  the  Bread 
of  Life,  the  Bread  that  cometh  down  from  heaven. 
The  opening  of  the  eyes  of  the  blind  is  related  simply 
because  John  wished  to  set  before  us  the  power  of 
Christ  to  open  our  spiritual  eyes. 

In  John's  Gospel  all  the  miracles  are  followed  by 
discourses,  and  the  miracles  are  only  the  text  of  the 
discourses.  The  miracles  are  not  related  for  them- 
selves only,  but  for  the  sake  of  the  truths  that  they 
teach.  If  it  were  not  for  John  we  would  not  have  the 
opening  of  the  eye?  of  the  blind  made  to  illustrate  the 
opening  of  the  eyes  of  the  spiritually  blind,  and  the  rais- 
ing of  the  dead  made  to  illustrate  the  raising  of  those 
who  are  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins. 

John  relates  six  miracles,  and  five  of  them  are 
wholly  new ;  only  one,  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand, 


THE   GOSPEL    ACCORDING    TO    JOHN  ICQ 

being  given  to  us  by  the  Synoptists.  We  have  an 
omission  of  all  the  parables  that  are  given  us  in  Mat- 
thew, Mark,  and  Luke ;  an  omission  of  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount,  and  an  omission  of  the  last  prophecies  in 
regard  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem;  in  fact,  two- 
thirds  of  John's  Gospel  is  wholly  new.  So  we  see  that 
the  Gospel  of  John  adds  a  large  mass  of  new  material 
to  what  had  been  given  us  before  by  Matthew,  Mark, 
and  Luke.  It  is  written,  therefore,  as  a  sort  of  sup- 
plement to  these  Gospels,  and  with  full  knowledge 
that  they  already  existed.  Yet,  why  was  this  Gospel 
written?  I  have  not  yet  touched  upon  what  is  really 
the  main  object  of  my  remarks  to-day;  for  unless  we 
get  clearly  before  us  the  central  idea  of  the  Gospel 
according  to  John,  we  shall  not  get  the  instruction  from 
it  that  we  should.  John  represents  Christ,  then,  as  the 
Licarnate  Word  of  God,  God  manifest  in  the  flesh, 
the  Life  and  the  Light  of  men.  It  is  the  aim  of  John 
to  set  before  us  the  spiritual  and  divine  side  of  Christ, 
as  the  Synoptists  had  set  before  us  the  human  side  of 
Christ. 

Eusebius,  one  of  the  church  Fathers,  says  that  the 
three  Evangelists — Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke — have 
given  us  the  body  of  the  truth ;  and  the  elders  of  Ephe- 
sus  urged  John  to  write  a  spiritual  Gospel:  i.  e.,  a 
Gospel  which  should  put  into  that  body  the  spirit 
which  John  knew  so  much  more  than  the  rest.  Says 
Cicero :  "  The  eye  sees  only  that  which  it  brings  with 
it,  the  power  of  seeing."  John,  with  his  intuitive  in- 
sight and  fervent  love,  saw  the  divine  side  of  Christ, 
as  Plato  saw  the  loftier  aspects  of  Socrates'  character, 
while  Xenophon  did  not.     John  represents  Christ  to 


no  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

US,  then,  as  the  Word  of  God,  who  was  in  the  begin- 
ning with  God  and  who  was  God,  who  is  the  Revealer 
of  God  to  man,  the  Creator  of  all  things,  not  simply  a 
human  messenger,  but  the  very  Truth  of  God,  and  the 
King  of  Truth. 

It  is  the  aim  of  John,  by  this  revelation,  to  raise  up 
all  Christian  life  to  a  new  level,  to  lead  all  Christians 
to  live  their  lives  in  union  with  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God.  The  expression  which  we  have  in  Paul's  Epis- 
tle, "  The  life  which  I  now  live  in  the  flesh,  I  live  by 
the  faith  of  the  Son  of  God,  who  loved  me  and  gave 
himself  for  me,"  is  only  an  expression  of  the  doctrine 
that  you  find  more  fully  brought  out  in  the  Gospel 
according  to  John. 

The  plan  of  this  Gospel  corresponds  perfectly  to 
its  object.  We  have,  first  of  all,  a  prologue  in  which, 
so  to  speak,  the  subject  is  set  forth  and  enlarged  upon. 
"  The  Word  of  God  who  was  in  the  beginning  with 
God  and  was  God,"  that  Word  of  God  becomes  human 
flesh  and  enters  into  our  human  life,  and  lives  the 
life  of  our  God  before  us.  There  are  two  parallel  re- 
sults or  effects  within  the  limits  of  humanity.  One 
of  these  effects  is  upon  the  unregenerate  and  unbe- 
lieving; and  you  have  a  continual  growth  of  unbelief 
in  this  Son  of  God,  who  has  come  from  above  to  en- 
lighten men,  and  you  have  various  types  of  unbelief. 
You  have  the  enmity  of  the  high  priests  and  the  Phari- 
sees, you  have  the  weakness  and  cowardice  of  Pilate, 
the  governor,  and  you  have  the  despicable  treachery  of 
Judas.  This  unbelief  is  continually  growing,  and  the 
signs  of  this  growth  are  continuous,  as  you  read  the 
narrative  from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  until  at  last 


THE   GOSPEL   ACCORDING   TO    JOHN  III 

it  culminates  in  hatefulness  and  enmity,  and  the  result 
is  the  crucifixion  of  the  Son  of  God.  In  other  words, 
unbelief  in  its  enmity  to  Christ  rises  up  and  puts  the 
Son  of  God  out  of  the  world. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  side  by  side  with  this, 
there  is  a  growth  in  faith  in  a  parallel  line  to  the  de- 
struction of  faith,  as  the  result  of  this  manifestation 
of  the  Son  of  God.  You  have  faith  beginning  in  weak- 
ness, and  then  growing  from  strong  to  stronger  until, 
at  last,  it  is  capable  of  overcoming  the  world.  You 
have  types  of  faith.  You  have  those  types,  first,  in 
Nathanael,  a  man  without  guile.  A  type  of  faith  in 
Nicodemus,  inward  faith  which,  after  all,  was  not 
strong  enough  to  make  him  willing  to  confess  the  name 
of  Christ.  A  type  of  faith  in  Andrew,  an  open- 
hearted  and  unthinking  faith.  A  type  of  faith  in 
Philip,  always  willing  and  wanting  to  bring  men  to 
Jesus.  Then  you  have  the  type  of  faith  which  you 
find  in  the  woman  of  Samaria;  and  then,  finally,  you 
have  the  culminating  type  of  faith  in  Thomas,  when 
that  naturally  most  unbelieving  of  all  the  apostles  be- 
comes so  affected  by  this  transcendent  manifestation  of 
the  Son  of  God  that  all  his  doubts  are  removed,  and 
at  last  he  is  brought  to  bow  down  at  the  Saviour's 
feet  and  to  cry,  "  My  Lord  and  my  God."  When  this 
last  triumph  of  faith  is  reached,  and  the  hardest  of 
the  apostles  to  reach  is  brought  into  absolute  submis- 
sion to  Jesus  as  his  very  God,  then  the  Gospel  ends. 
Then  the  thesis  has  been  proved,  and  that  final  con- 
fession of  Christ  is  followed  by  the  natural  conclusion 
of  the  Gospel.  These  things  are  told  in  order  that 
we  might  know  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 


112  THE    BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

God,  and  believing  we  might  have  life  in  his  name. 
So  the  Gospel  properly  ends  with  the  twentieth 
chapter. 

The  twenty-first  chapter  is  nothing  but  an  epilogue, 
subsequently  added  by  John  himself,  added  for  a  par- 
ticular purpose,  because  there  grew  up  in  the  church  at 
that  time  the  idea  that  the  promise  of  Christ  to  John 
meant  that  he  should  never  die ;  and  John,  himself,  in 
his  very  last  days  appears  to  have  added  that  chapter 
with  an  account  of  the  circumstances  under  which  that 
saying  was  made  to  him  by  Christ,  and  an  interpreta- 
tion of  the  meaning  of  it;  so  that  the  Gospel  accord- 
ing to  John  properly  ends  with  the  twentieth  chapter, 
with  a  confession  on  the  part  of  Thomas  that  Jesus 
is  his  Lord. 

So  there  are  evidences  of  structure  in  the  Gospel 
which  are  very  striking,  and  which  will  make  the 
reading  more  interesting  to  us  if  we  will  notice  them 
as  we  read. 

Notice  now  the  relation  of  this  Gospel  to  the  synoptic 
Gospels.  The  Gospel  according  to  John  is  the  Gospel 
of  the  spirit,  while  the  synoptic  Gospels  give  us  the 
gospel  of  the  facts.  In  it  we  have  revealed  to  us  the 
heart  of  Jesus,  as  it  is  not  revealed  in  the  synoptic 
Gospels.  This  Gospel  gives  us  the  spiritual  side  of 
our  Lord,  while  the  synoptic  Gospels  give  us  the 
earthly  side. 

There  is  a  relation  of  this  Gospel  to  the  Apocalypse. 
It  is  the  spiritual  interpretation  of  the  book  of  Reve- 
lation. John's  declarations  in  the  Gospel  with  regard 
to  Christ's  person  and  work  were  the  result  of  long 
preaching  and  long  contemplation  on  the  part  of  the 


THE    GOSPEL    ACCORDING    TO    JOHN  II3 

beloved  apostle,  who  lived  longer  than  the  other 
apostles,  at  the  end  of  the  century,  and  who  quite 
outgrew  the  fire  and  fury  of  his  earlier  writing  in 
the  Apocalypse. 

Then  there  is  a  relation  of  this  Gospel  to  the  Epistles 
of  John.  The  Epistles  of  John  are  running  comments 
upon  the  same  great  facts,  a  subsequent  addition  prob- 
ably to  the  Gospel  itself,  the  Gospel  beginning  with  the 
Son  of  God  in  heaven,  and  showing  us  that  this  Word 
had  become  embodied  in  humanity,  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  Epistles  going  through  the  reverse  process, 
and  showing  that  this  Jesus  whom  they  had  handled 
and  whom  they  had  seen  with  their  eyes  here  upon  the 
earth  was  absolutely  the  Son  of  God,  who  came  down 
from  heaven. 

So  there  is  evidence,  not  only  of  an  internal  unity 
in  the  Gospel  itself,  but  of  an  organic  relation  of  the 
Gospel  with  John's  other  writings,  in  the  providence  of 
God  and  under  the  direction  of  his  Spirit,  which  shows 
it  to  be  a  part  of  the  whole  system  of  truth  given  us  in 
the  New  Testament. 

There  are  many  things  which  John  gives  us  in  this 
Gospel,  but  which  are  not  given  to  us  elsewhere.  For 
example,  we  have  an  account  of  the  Judean  ministry, 
which  hardly  comes  to  us  at  all  in  the  synoptic  Gospels. 
The  scene  of  John  is  mainly  laid  in  Judea,  whereas  the 
scene  of  the  synoptic  Gospels  is  mainly  laid  in  Galilee. 
We  have  here  very  much  more  to  do  with  the  scribes 
and  Pharisees,  high  priests,  and  rulers  of  the  people 
than  we  have  in  the  synoptic  Gospels.  Then,  more- 
over, we  have  here  two  great  miracles,  the  two  great- 
est, the  first  and  the  last :  the  miracle  performed  at  the 

H 


114  THE    BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

wedding-feast  of  Cana,  and  the  last  and  most  wonder- 
ful of  Christ's  miracles,  the  raising  of  Lazarus  from 
the  dead.    These  are  given  us  only  by  John. 

We  have  not  given  to  us  here  at  all  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount,  and  yet  we  have  in  place  of  that  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  the  next  longest  discourse  of  Christ,  that 
last  profound  discourse  to  his  disciples  upon  the  very 
eve  of  his  suffering.  This  has  been  called  the  "  holy  of 
holies  "  of  the  book  of  God.  How  much  we  should  lose 
if  we  had  not  these  chapters  in  which  Jesus  tells  us : 
''  Let  not  your  heart  be  troubled,  ye  believe  in  God, 
believe  also  in  me."  If  there  be  any  portion  of  Scrip- 
ture that  brings  us  near  to  Christ  himself  and  lets  us 
into  the  very  secrets  of  the  divine  nature,  it  is  these 
last  chapters  of  John's  Gospel.  We  have  not  these 
discourses  anywhere  else.  We  owe  them  entirely  to 
John. 

Now  notice  that  John  deals  very  little  with  the  out- 
ward. John  does  not  tell  us  anything  about  baptism, 
or  the  command  to  be  baptized;  but  John  does  tell  us 
the  meaning  of  baptism  in  the  discourse  with  Nicode- 
mus :  "  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the 
Spirit,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God  " — the  neces- 
sity of  an  inward  birth  that  is  symbolized  outwardly 
by  baptism.  John  does  not  tell  us  anything  about  the 
Lord's  Supper  and  its  institution;  but  he  does  tell  us 
of  that  profound  discourse  which  sets  forth  the  central 
truth  which  the  Lord's  Supper  symbolizes. 

John  does  not  tell  us  anything  with^  regard  to  the 
external  organization  of  the  Christian  church,  but 
he  tells  us  most  about  that  union  of  the  believer  with 
Christ  which   is   the   basis   of  the   Christian   church. 


THE    GOSPEL    ACCORDING    TO    JOHN  II5 

Unless  a  man  knows  something  of  that  union  of  the 
believer  with  his  Saviour,  he  cannot  be  a  Christian  nor 
has  he  any  right  to  a  place  in  the  Christian  church. 
It  is,  then,  the  vital  truth  itself,  the  central  thing  itself, 
that  John  with  his  clear  insight  sets  forth  to  us  in  the 
most  glowing  way.  Mark,  you  remember,  begins  his 
story  with  the  public  ministry  of  Christ;  Matthew  and 
Luke  begin  with  the  birth  of  the  Saviour;  but  John 
alone  begins  with  the  Eternal  Word  with  the  Father 
before  the  world  was. 

The  style  of  John  corresponds  perfectly  to  the  mat- 
ter that  he  has  to  set  forth.  It  is  distinguished  by 
wonderful  fulness,  but,  at  the  same  time,  by  wonderful 
depth.  It  is  profound,  yet  simple.  It  is  astonishing 
how  few  words  John  uses,  and  how  constantly  repeated 
those  words  are — life  and  death,  light  and  darkness, 
God  and  Satan.  All  these  words  come  over  and  over 
and  over  again. 

These  words  are  rich  words.  They  are  full  of  mean- 
ing. They  are  like  the  gold  coins  which  only  the  great 
lord  keeps  about  him,  and  with  which  he  makes  his 
payments.  It  is  the  Gospel  of  holy  love  and  peace. 
There  is  a  contemplative,  quiet,  calm  spirit  running 
through  it  all,  a  spirit  that  is  not  of  this  world. 

I  have  often  thought  that  the  skeptic,  if  he  would 
but  read  this  Gospel  according  to  John,  and  ponder  it 
as  he  should,  would  find  in  it  a  sufficient  evidence  of 
the  truth  of  Christianity.  Christ  is  set  forth  here  in 
such  a  way  that  a  man  cannot  mistake  the  dignity  and 
glory  of  the  representation,  if  he  be  a  man  who  has 
any  sense  of  his  personal  needs,  if  he  knows  himself 
at  all  to  be  a  sinner. 


Il6  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

It  has  been  said  that  "  poetry  is  the  art  of  putting 
infinity  into  things."  To  show  the  relation  of  our 
life  to  the  infinite  is  the  aim  of  poetry.  Judged  by 
that  standard,  this  Gospel  according  to  John  is  the 
greatest  poem  that  was  ever  written,  the  greatest  com- 
position of  any  sort,  indeed,  that  was  ever  written  upon 
this  earth.  If  there  were  one  single  book  of  the  Bible 
which  I  could  retain,  providing  all  the  rest  were  taken 
from  me,  it  is  this  Gospel  according  to  John,  for  this 
sets  before  me  my  Lord  and  my  Saviour  as  no  other 
Gospel  does. 

Yet  such  a  man  as  John  Stuart  Mill  read  this  Gos- 
pel and  called  it  unintelligible  and  insipid.  May  God 
forgive  him!  An  unregenerate  heart  and  self-compla- 
cent soul  may  read  the  Gospel  of  John,  and  it  will 
seem  like  a  mystic  tale,  with  little  sense  or  meaning; 
but  for  the  man  who  knows  himself  to  be  a  sinner, 
above  all,  the  man  who  has  had  any  sense  whatever  of 
his  dependence  upon  Christ,  for  such  a  man  this  Gos- 
pel is  the  very  word  of  Christ  himself,  and  it  makes 
Christ  manifest  in  his  beauty  and  glory. 

The  work  of  a  forger?  Such  a  production  as  this, 
written  by  one  who  pretended  to  be  a  disciple  of  Christ 
in  the  second  century,  for  merely  political  purposes? 
It  is  as  absurd  as  to  tell  me  that  Beelzebub  has  been 
casting  out  devils  for  these  eighteen  hundred  years. 
This  Gospel  according  to  John  has  cast  out  too  many 
evil  spirits  to  permit  us  to  attribute  it  to  a  forger.  It 
can  have  its  authorship  only  in  a  heart  that  was  filled 
with  Christ  himself,  only  in  a  heart  that  was  drawn 
near  to  the  living  God  by  the  mighty  inspiration  of  his 
Spirit. 


JOHN'S  GOSPEL  THE  COMPLEMENT  OF 
LUKE'S 

I  PRESENT  in  this  lecture  an  orthodox  essay  in  the 
higher  criticism.  It  is  an  attempt  to  show  from  internal 
evidence  the  relation  between  the  Gospel  of  Luke  and 
the  Gospel  of  John.  It  is  not  wholly  original.  In  the 
year  1900,  Doctor  Giimbel,  gymnasial  professor  and 
consistorialrath  at  Speyer  on  the  Rhine,  gave  to  the 
world  an  exegetical  study  which  he  entitled  "  John's 
Gospel  a  Complement  of  Luke's  Gospel."  The  word 
"  complement,"  however,  does  not  fully  represent  the 
German  word  Ergdnzung.  The  author  means  that  the 
third  and  the  fourth  Gospels  constitute  one  whole ;  that 
John  composed  his  Gospel  with  Luke's  Gospel  before 
him ;  that  his  own  work  is  intended  as  a  supplement  and 
not  as  an  independent  account  of  Jesus'  life  and  teach- 
ing; that  he  therefore  limits  himself  to  filling  up  the 
gaps  in  Luke's  narrative,  omitting  everything  which 
Luke  had  narrated,  except  in  those  cases  where  his 
own  eye-witness  and  ear-witness  enable  him  to  add 
useful  interpretation  or  detail. 

It  must  be  acknowledged  that  the  reasoning  of  this 
little  German  book,  if  it  be  sound,  will  do  much  to  settle 
the  disputed  questions  as  to  the  date  and  the  author- 
ship of  the  fourth  Gospel,  and  to  place  on  an  impreg- 
nable basis  the  historicity  and  trustworthiness  of  the 
other  Gospel  narratives.  When  the  halves  of  a  broken 
jar  are  dug  out  of  the  ground  at  Mycenae  or  Gnossos, 

117 


Il8  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

and  are  found  to  fit  each  other  so  that  every  indentation 
of  the  one  corresponds  to  a  protuberance  of  the  other, 
there  is  double  reason  to  deduce  from  its  shape  and 
epigraphy  the  facts  of  its  history.  Our  author  con- 
tends that  John's  Gospel  and  Luke's  Gospel  fit  into 
each  other  like  two  dove-tailed  parts  of  a  bureau 
drawer,  or  like  the  interlaced  fingers  of  our  two  hands. 
The  later  is  constructed  to  complete  the  earlier,  but 
to  add  only  those  matters  of  personal  observation  and 
experience  which  are  needed  to  make  the  twofold  his- 
tory a  perfect  whole.  This  demonstration,  if  it  be 
well  grounded,  will  relieve  John's  Gospel  from  the 
charge  that  it  is  merely  a  philosophical  speculation  of 
the  second  century,  and  will  give  to  the  higher  aspects 
of  Jesus'  life  the  value  of  settled  history.  I  regard 
the  work  of  Professor  Giimbel  as  an  important  contri- 
bution to  theological  science,  and  I  am  glad  in  this 
essay  to  call  attention  to  it.  But  I  must  not  take  his 
conclusions  for  granted  at  the  start.  Let  me  proceed 
to  the  proof. 

The  apostle  John  was  born  in  Galilee.  James  was 
his  elder  brother.  His  father,  Zebedee,  was  a  master- 
fisherman  who  had  hired  servants  and  was  a  man  of 
means.  John's  mother  was  probably  Salome.  At 
any  rate,  she  still  lived  after  he  had  become  a  disciple. 
She  was  ambitious,  and  not  content  that  her  sons 
should  always  follow  their  trade  as  fishermen.  She 
had  still  the  worldly  conception  of  Jesus'  mission,  and 
she  incited  James  and  John  to  ask  that  one  of  them 
may  sit  at  Christ's  right  hand  and  the  other  on  his  left 
in  his  future  kingdom.  The  annual  visits  to  Jerusa- 
lem at  the  time  of  the  feasts  gave  opportunity  to  the 


JOHN    THE    COMPLEMENT    OF    LUKE  1 19 

sons  to  become  acquainted  with  the  locaHties  of  the 
sacred  city.  It  is  not  therefore  wonderful  that  this 
child  of  well-to-do  parents  shows  minute  knowledge 
of  Bethesda,  the  Pool  of  Siloam,  Solomon's  Porch,  the 
brook  Kidron,  Gabbatha,  Bethany,  fifteen  furlongs 
from  Jerusalem.  But  the  fact  that  our  Saviour  on  the 
cross  commits  his  mother  to  John's  care,  so  that  he 
takes  her  to  his  own  home,  indicates  that  the  family 
had  a  permanent  residence  in  Jerusalem,  and  that  they 
were  householders  of  some  consequence. 

The  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  has  an  acquaint- 
ance with  official  and  notable  persons  in  Jerusalem, 
more  intimate  than  is  shown  by  the  other  Evangelists. 
It  is  John  who  recognized  the  representatives  of  the 
Sanhedrin  when  they  came  to  ask  the  credentials  of 
the  Baptist;  it  is  John  who  tells  us  of  Christ's  conver- 
sation with  Nicodemus  and  of  the  gift  of  spices  which 
Nicodemus  made  for  Christ's  burial ;  it  is  John  who  is 
the  friend  of  Annas  and  of  Caiaphas,  and  who  has  the 
entree  to  the  high  priest's  house.  This  last  fact  of 
John's  relation  to  the  high  priest  throws  light  upon  his 
whole  history.  That  relation  could  not  have  been 
formed  after  John  had  become  Jesus'  disciple.  It  in- 
dicates that  before  John  went  to  the  banks  of  Jordan 
to  hear  the  Baptist  he  had  lived  in  Jerusalem  and  had 
become  intimate  with  its  rulers.  These  connections 
could  not  have  been  made  by  a  known  follower  of 
Jesus,  and  after  Jesus'  criticism  had  made  scribes  and 
Pharisees  his  enemies. 

It  requires  some  historical  imagination  to  recon- 
struct our  view  of  those  early  days.  Is  it  too  much  to 
suppose  that  John's  ambitious  mother,   knowing  his 


120  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

fervid  religious  spirit,  and  eager  to  withdraw  him 
from  manual  toil,  had  sent  him  when  a  mere  youth  to 
the  great  rabbinical  school  at  Jerusalem,  and  had  main- 
tained him  there  ?  That  was  the  road  to  education  and 
to  station.  What  happened  to  Saul  of  Tarsus  might 
easily  happen  to  John.  It  is  quite  possible  that  the 
family  of  Zebedee  was  of  priestly  rank,  and  that  rela- 
tives of  theirs  held  priestly  office.  Polycrates,  the 
Christian  Father,  bishop  of  Ephesus  in  196,  relates 
that  John  was  born  a  priest,  wearing  the  high-priestly 
miter,  and  the  German  writer  Delff  asserts^  that  this 
word  miter,  or  nsralov,  indicates  that  John  was  of  the 
family  of  the  high  priest  and  had  actually  performed 
high-priestly  functions.  James  is  also  said  to  have 
worn  the  nezaXov,  or  miter.  I  pay  little  regard  to  this 
tradition.  But  it  shows  in  the  early  church  a  belief 
that  John's  connection  with  the  high  priest  was  some- 
thing more  than  a  mere  matter  of  friendship.  The 
young  man  had  some  claim  upon  the  elder  because  of 
family  relationship. 

Consider  now  how  much  it  would  mean  to  an  ardent 
and  spiritual  soul  to  be  sent  for  education  into  such 
surroundings.  Who  were  the  high  priests  of  that 
day?  Not  Pharisees,  but  Sadducees.  They  were  a 
sacerdotal  aristocracy,  comparatively  few  in  number, 
but  comprising  most  of  the  able  and  original  thinkers 
of  the  Jewish  nation.  It  was  their  sharpness  and  vigor 
that  had  given  them  wealth  and  political  influence. 
They  had  seized  the  reins  of  government,  had  formed 
alliances  with  the  Romans,  had  made  the  high  priest- 
hood hereditary  in  their  families.     Over  against  the 

1  Geschichte  d.  Rabbi  Jesus  v.  Nazareth,  71. 


JOHN    THE    COMPLEMENT    OF    LUKE  121 

narrow  traditionalism  and  ceremonialism  of  the  Phari- 
sees they  were  the  speculators,  the  inquirers,  the  phi- 
losophers, the  skeptics  of  the  day.  They  did  not  be- 
lieve in  the  resurrection,  nor  in  angel  or  spirit.  They 
were  rationalists  rather  than  believers,  politicians 
rather  than  rationalists.  Free  thought  could  be  toler- 
ated among  them,  so  long  as  it  did  not  imperil  their 
standing  and  their  power.  Hence  it  was  not  until 
Jesus'  work  was  half  done  that  they  joined  with  the 
Pharisees  to  put  him  to  death. 

It  is  said  that  Philo  of  Alexandria,  whose  birth 
antedated  that  of  Jesus  by  twenty  years,  went  on  one 
occasion  to  Jerusalem  to  offer  prayer  and  sacrifice.  It 
is  quite  possible  that  on  that  visit  he  may  have  ex- 
changed with  the  doctors  of  the  law  some  ideas  with 
regard  to  the  mediating  principle  between  God  and  the 
world.  Jerusalem  had  thirty-two  synagogues,  and 
each  part  of  the  world  had  its  peculiar  place  of  meet- 
ing in  this  center  of  Judaism.  There  was  a  synagogue 
of  the  Alexandrians  in  Jerusalem,  and  Apollos,  Paul's 
convert,  was  an  Alexandrian  by  race.  The  Alexan- 
drian doctrine  of  the  Logos  must  have  been  known 
and  discussed  in  the  Jewish  schools,  and  here  the  warm- 
hearted and  receptive  John  may  have  gotten  his  first 
acquaintance  with  that  great  word  whose  meaning  only 
dimly  revealed  itself  to  him,  but  which  he  found  so 
useful  after  he  had  seen  that  the  Word  had  become 
flesh  and  had  dwelt  among  us. 

If  Jesus  at  the  age  of  twelve  was  found  among  the 
doctors  of  the  temple,  both  hearing  them  and  asking 
them  questions,  we  may  believe  that  the  disciples  whom 
Jesus  loved  had  a  similar  experience.     And  he  must 


122  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

have  found  others  of  like  mind.  Nicodemus  did  not 
need  to  be  an  old  man  to  be  a  ruler  of  the  Jews,  for  it 
was  only  thirty  years  that  were  required  for  qualifica- 
tion. John  must  have  formed  his  acquaintance  before 
he  became  Jesus'  disciple,  and  so  may  have  afterward 
introduced  him  to  our  Lord,  and  even  have  been  pres- 
ent when  Nicodemus  came  to  Jesus  by  night.  The 
Sadducean  indifferentism  and  abstract  speculation 
could  not  satisfy  either  of  these  spiritually  inclined 
young  men.  Nor  could  the  Pharisees,  with  their  in- 
sistence upon  outward  ceremonial,  answer  the  deep 
demand  of  their  hearts  for  one  who  should  make 
atonement  for  sin  and  give  life  to  the  stricken  soul. 

When  John  the  Baptist  uttered  his  call  to  repent- 
ance and  proclaimed  the  near  approach  of  the  promised 
Messiah,  all  Palestine  was  stirred,  and  all  truly  earnest 
Jews  were  moved,  as  by  a  common  impulse,  to  flock 
to  John's  baptism.  That  one  word,  "  Behold  the  Lamb 
of  God,  who  taketh,"  and  so  taketh  away,  "  the  sin  of 
the  world,"  was  to  John  the  beginning  of  a  new  life. 
Though  his  modesty  leads  him  to  keep  back  all  men- 
tion of  his  own  name,  "  that  other  disciple  "  who  was 
with  Andrew,  was,  if  not  the  first,  then  certainly  the 
second  of  those  whom  Jesus  called  to  follow  him. 
From  Jesus  John  learns  his  own  sinfulness  and  need 
of  redemption,  but  also  Jesus'  perfect  ability  to  supply 
that  need.  So  he  stays  with  Jesus  and  rejoices  in  him 
as  the  promised  Messiah  and  Saviour  of  the  world. 

Matthew  and  Mark  add  little  to  our  knowledge  of 
John's  personality,  but  what  they  give  us  confirms  the 
view  we  have  taken.  John  is  recognized  as  belonging 
to  the  inner  circle  of  the  disciples.     At  the  raising  of 


JOHN    THE    COMPLEMENT    OF    LUKE  I23 

Jairus'  daughter,  at  the  transfiguration,  and  in  Geth- 
semane,  Jesus  takes  with  him  John,  as  well  as  Peter 
and  James.  But  we  have  only  two  utterances  of  John 
in  the  synoptic  narratives :  the  one  when  John  forbids 
the  man  who  was  casting  out  demons  in  Jesus'  name 
without  following  the  Lord,  and  the  other  when  with 
James  he  would  call  down  fire  from  heaven  upon  the 
Samaritans  who  refuse  our  Lord  a  night's  lodging. 
Jesus  calls  the  two  brothers,  James  and  John,  "  sons 
of  thunder,"  apparently  because  of  their  tropical  im- 
pulsiveness and  disposition  to  take  Jesus'  part  against 
every  enemy  of  their  Lord.  With  Peter,  after  Jesus' 
resurrection  and  after  Pentecost,  John  goes  up  to  the 
Beautiful  Gate  of  the  temple  and  assists  in  the  cure 
of  the  lame  man;  with  Peter,  he  is  imprisoned  and 
protests  against  the  repressive  edict  of  the  Sanhedrin ; 
with  Peter,  he  is  sent  to  Samaria  to  invoke  upon  the 
new  converts  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  in 
all  these  cases  Peter  appears  to  be  the  speaker,  and 
John  aids  only  by  his  counsel  and  example.  And  now 
John  disappears  wholly  from  the  sacred  record,  and 
we  hear  of  him  only  from  tradition.  Let  us  follow 
Scripture  for  a  little  and  turn  our  attention  to  Luke, 
if  perchance  we  may  learn  something  of  the  origin  of 
his  Gospel. 

Eusebius,  the  church  Father,  tells  us  that  Luke  was 
born  in  Antioch.  The  text  of  Beza,  in  Acts  ii  :  26, 
reads  "  when  we  were  assembled,"  and  makes  it  pos- 
sible that  Luke's  acquaintance  with  Paul  began  in 
the  meetings  of  the  church  at  Antioch.  But  it  is  well- 
nigh  certain  from  the  "  we  "  sections  of  the  Acts  that 
Luke  and  Paul  were  intimately  associated  from  the 


124  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

time  of  Paul's  entering  Macedonia  to  the  time  of  his 
second  imprisonment  at  Rome.  This  association  covers 
a  period  of  fourteen  years,  A.  D.  50-64,  though  for 
seven  years  of  these  fourteen  Luke  was  probably  left 
by  Paul  at  Philippi  as  pastor.  On  his  third  missionary 
journey  Paul  takes  Luke  as  his  constant  companion 
and  assistant.  From  Paul  Luke  must  have  learned  all 
that  Paul  knew  of  Jesus'  history,  together  with  Paul's 
interpretation  of  Jesus'  work.  Scholars  of  all  schools 
have  acknowledged  the  Paulinism  of  Luke's  Gospel. 
It  is  nominally  addressed  to  a  Greek  of  distinction,  but 
it  is  evidently  intended  for  the  whole  Greek-speaking 
world.  All  Jewish  limitations  seem  in  it  to  be  broken 
down.  It  is  the  Gospel  of  universal  humanity.  Sa- 
maritans and  Gentiles  are  made  object-lessons  of  faith 
and  prayer,  of  benevolence  and  blessing.  Renan  called 
Luke's  Gospel  "  the  most  beautiful  book  ever  written," 
and  Harnack  says  that  his  story  was  "  the  indispensable 
condition  of  the  incorporation  of  Paul's  Epistles  in  the 
New  Testament  canon." 

When  was  Luke's  Gospel  written?  Its  date  must 
be  determined  by  comparison  with  that  of  the  Acts. 
But  the  Acts  gives  us  no  account  of  the  trial  or  of 
the  release  of  the  apostle  Paul.  Inasmuch  as  Harnack 
has  recently  acknowledged  that  the  Acts  must  have 
been  written  before  the  close  of  Paul's  first  Roman  im- 
prisonment, and  that  the  Gospel  must  be  dated  yet 
earlier,  we  may  reasonably  conclude  that  Paul's  im- 
prisonment at  Caesarea  was  the  time  and  the  occasion 
of  its  writing.  After  two  full  years  of  ministry  at 
Ephesus  Paul  had  gone  to  Jerusalem,  knowing  that 
bonds  and  death  were  not  far  away  in  the  future.    He 


JOHN    THE    COMPLEMENT    OF    LUKE  I25 

is  arrested  and  imprisoned  in  Csesarea.  Luke  is  with 
him  there.  But  while  Paul  is  in  bonds,  Luke  is  free. 
For  two  whole  years  Luke  can  go  to  and  fro  from 
Cassarea  to  Jerusalem,  and  from  Jerusalem  to  Caesarea, 
serving  as  Paul's  messenger,  gathering  from  Mary, 
Jesus'  mother,  and  from  relatives  of  Jesus,  from  the 
elder  apostles,  and  from  other  eye-witnesses  the 
materials  for  his  Gospel,  and  with  Paul's  sanction,  if 
not  his  actual  supervision,  collating  all  the  earlier 
narratives,  and  writing  his  own  account  of  Christ's 
life  and  ministry. 

It  is  quite  probable  that  Luke  may  have  had  in  his 
hands  our  present  Gospels  of  Mark  and  even  of  Mat- 
thew, and  that  he  may  have  incorporated  in  his  own 
narrative  such  portions  of  those  Gospels  as  suited  his 
purpose.  The  earliest  germs  of  our  New  Testament 
were  probably  the  Logia,  or  sayings  of  Jesus,  and 
these,  in  the  Hebrew  or  Aramaic  in  which  they  were 
originally  spoken,  may  have  been  written  down  within 
five  or  ten  years  after  Jesus'  death.  Matthew  himself 
may  have  been  the  first  to  commit  them  to  writing. 
Mark,  however,  was  the  first  to  add  the  story  of  Jesus' 
life  and  miracles,  and  so  to  transform  the  Logia  into 
a  complete  Gospel.  Then  Matthew  may  have  en- 
larged his  original  work  and  translated  it  into  Greek. 
When  Luke  begins  his  Gospel  by  saying  that  *'  many 
have  taken  in  hand  to  draw  up  a  narrative  concerning 
those  matters  which  have  been  fulfilled  among  us,"  he 
may  be  acknowledging  his  indebtedness  to  the  two  pre- 
ceding Gospels,  as  well  as  to  the  new  sources  of  infor- 
mation which  he  has  himself  discovered. 

It  is  also  possible  that  the  Ephesian  church  possessed 


126  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

the  Gospels  of  Mark  and  of  Matthew.  But  there  was 
special  reason  why  Paul  should  have  wished  that 
church  to  possess  the  Gospel  according  to  Luke :  Mat- 
thew was  written  for  Jewish  Christians,  and  Mark  for 
Roman  Christians,  while  Luke  incorporated  what  was 
best  in  these  and  yet  was  written  for  the  whole  Gentile 
and  Greek-speaking  world.  Is  it  not  probable  that  one 
of  Paul's  first  concerns,  as  he  went  to  Rome  or  after 
he  had  reached  the  eternal  city,  was  to  furnish  his  dear 
Ephesian  converts  with  Luke's  priceless  record  of 
Jesus'  works  and  teachings  ?  We  know  that  he  sought 
by  letters  to  supply  the  lack  of  his  own  personal  minis- 
trations to  the  churches  of  Asia.  This  central  church 
of  Asia  was  a  pivot  upon  which  the  Christian  future 
of  the  whole  Eastern  world  revolved,  and  he  had, 
therefore,  spent  with  it  a  longer  time  than  he  had  de- 
voted to  any  other  church  of  the  Gentiles.  Luke's  Gos- 
pel would  largely  make  up  for  Paul's  own  absence  and 
for  the  loss  of  his  oral  testimony.  The  Ephesians, 
moreover,  knew  and  loved  the  Evangelist,  for  Luke 
was  with  Paul  when  he  parted  from  the  Ephesian 
elders,  and  in  Paul's  letter  to  the  Colossians,  who  were 
so  near  to  Ephesus,  he  speaks  of  Luke  as  "  the  beloved 
physician."  Could  Paul  withhold  from  the  Ephesians 
this  help  to  their  faith  ?  What  his  own  preaching  could 
not  do  this  written  Gospel  of  Luke  might  do,  by  fixing 
indelibly  in  their  minds  the  lineaments  of  the  Son  of 
God.  I  think  it  probable  that  the  Ephesian  church  was 
possessed  of  the  Gospel  according  to  Luke,  and  that 
Paul  himself  took  care  that  they  should  possess  it  as  a 
substitute  for  his  oral  teaching,  and  as  a  permanent  ex- 
pression of  his  view  of  Jesus'  life  and  work. 


JOHN    THE    COMPLEMENT    OF    LUKE  12/ 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Paul  during  his  two 
years'  stay  in  Ephesus  had  taught  the  Ephesians  the 
main  facts  of  Jesus'  hfe.  He  had  done  this  orally. 
Now  that  he  has  given  them  Luke's  written  Gospel, 
his  work  is  done.  The  year  64,  or  the  year  A.  D.  65, 
marks  the  date  of  Paul's  martyrdom.  The  Ephesian 
church  must  now  have  other  leadership.  The  death  of 
Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus,  and  the  approaching  fall  of 
the  Jewish  state,  leaves  the  apostle  John  free  to  take 
up  Paul's  work  and  to  carry  it  on  to  larger  issues.  And 
so  this  deeply  pondering,  but  quiet  and  undemonstra- 
tive, man  finds  himself  at  last  and  is  called  to  utter- 
ance. Many  years  of  care  for  our  Lord's  mother  have 
made  him  possessed  of  abundant  material  which  has 
found  no  outlet  in  the  way  of  publication.  He  was 
sent  to  Ephesus  to  give  his  own  life-picture  of  Jesus  to 
the  world.  He  could  furnish  what  Paul  could  not, 
namely,  his  own  personal  reminiscences  of  Christ,  to- 
gether with  the  inferences  and  reflections  which  had 
come  to  him  from  long  meditation  upon  that  marvelous 
divine  manifestation  and  from  deeply  drinking  in  the 
spirit  of  Jesus. 

So  John  leaves  Jerusalem  and  takes  Paul's  place  at 
Ephesus,  in  Asia  Minor.  There  he  cares  for  the 
churches  of  Asia  for  thirty  years,  or  to  the  end 
of  his  life.  He  suffers  exile  for  a  time  in  the  Isle  of 
Patmos,  but  the  result  is  the  Apocalypse.  Polycrates,  a 
bishop  of  Ephesus,  a  century  after  John's  death,  testi- 
fies that  the  remains  of  the  apostle  rest  in  Ephesus. 
During  this  long  ministry  of  thirty  years,  Irenaeus  tells 
us  that  John  would  not  use  water  in  which  Cerinthus 
the  heretic  had  bathed;  Clement  of  Alexandria  relates 


128  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

his  seeking  out  the  young  robber  who  had  fallen  away 
from  Christ ;  Jerome  informs  us  that,  in  his  old  age,  the 
apostle  had  but  one  sermon,  "  Little  children,  love  one 
another!  "  All  this  was  supplemental  to  Paul's  teach- 
ing and  method,  but  it  was  in  no  respect  contradictory 
to  it.  Paul  had  taught  the  preexistence  and  deity  of 
Christ  before  John  came  to  Ephesus,  and  the  doctrine 
of  union  with  Christ  was  central  to  the  theology  of 
both.  John,  like  Paul,  was  a  cultivated  Jew,  and  in  his 
own  way  able  to  withstand  the  Judaizers  and  to  win 
the  heathen.  Paul  had  the  wider  training,  but  John 
had  the  greater  personal  knowledge  of  Christ.  And  it 
was  this  that  the  Ephesian  church  most  needed. 

John,  at  Ephesus,  had  the  great  advantage  of  finding 
the  church  already  in  possession  of  a  written  Gospel. 
Luke's  Gospel  was  virtually  Paul's  testimony,  and  John 
had  only  to  supplement  Luke's  Gospel  by  adding  his 
own  recollections  of  Jesus,  and  his  own  interpretations 
of  Jesus'  works  and  words.  Where  Luke  has  spoken 
John  omits,  except  in  those  cases  where  additional  de- 
tail is  needed  to  complete  the  narrative.  But  there  are 
large  tracts  of  Jesus'  life  and  ministry  for  which  Luke 
did  not  possess  the  material.  The  early  Judean  minis- 
try Luke  does  not  narrate,  apparently  for  the  reason 
that  his  informants  were  the  men  of  Galilee.  John, 
who  had  lived  in  Jerusalem  and  wdio  knew  the  authori- 
ties there,  could  tell  of  Nicodemus  and  the  Sanhedrin, 
and  of  Jesus'  first  year  of  appeal  to  the  ecclesiastical 
chiefs  of  the  Jewish  nation. 

One  reason  why  the  Synoptists  do  not  tell  us  more 
of  Jesus'  early  life  and  ministry  is  probably  that  the 
disciples  did  not  at  the  first  appreciate  the  importance 


JOHN    THE    COMPLEMENT    OF    LUKE  I29 

of  his  acts  and  utterances.  Only  gradually  did  they 
learn  to  mark  every  step  and  treasure  up  every  word. 
It  takes  some  education,  moreover,  to  retain  long  dis- 
courses in  the  memory,  and  correctly  to  reproduce 
them.  John  was  gifted  in  both  these  respects  beyond 
the  other  apostles.  From  the  very  beginning  his  intense 
spiritual  nature  found  the  words  of  Jesus  to  be  spirit 
and  life,  and  we  have  seen  it  probable  that  his  early  edu- 
cation qualified  him  to  remember  and  to  repeat  all 
that  he  saw  and  heard.  The  methods  of  the  rabbinical 
schools  were  very  unlike  those  to  which  we  are  accus- 
tomed, though  they  still  prevail  in  the  East,  as  in  the 
Mohammedan  University,  the  Azhar  Mosque,  of  Cairo. 
The  rabbins  did  not  dictate.  The  scholars  repeated 
what  they  heard.  Instances  are  frequent  in  which  long 
lectures  are  retained  and  reproduced  by  the  hearer, 
with  scarcely  the  loss  of  a  single  word.  It  is  not  at  all 
impossible  that  the  discourse  to  Nicodemus  is  a  sub- 
stantially verbatim  report,  and  that  John's  account  of 
Jesus'  words  to  his  disciples  on  the  night  of  his  be- 
trayal is  a  nearly  precise  reproduction  of  that  wonder  • 
ful  address  by  one  who  lost  no  part  of  it.  Bruce,  in  his 
"  Training  of  the  Twelve,"  declares  that  the  twelve 
apostles  probably  knew  the  whole  Old  Testament  by 
heart.  Pundita  Ramabai,  at  Oxford,  recited  from  the 
Rigveda,  passim,  and  showed  that  she  knew  more  of 
it  by  heart  than  the  whole  contents  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. 

I  make  these  remarks  to  show  that  John's  nature 
and  training  qualified  him  to  add  precisely  those  ele- 
ments which  Luke's  Gospel  lacked — the  elements  of 
personal    acquaintance    with    Jesus    and    of    spiritual 


130  THE    BOOKS   OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

reception  and  retention.  But  there  was  another  ad- 
vantage which  John  possessed  at  Ephesus.  He  had 
come  out  from  the  faUing  Jewish  state;  he  could  re- 
gard the  Jews  as  enemies  of  his  Lord;  and  he  was 
safe  from  their  hatred  and  violence.  That  is  probably 
the  reason  why  he  could  tell  the  story  of  Lazarus' 
resurrection  when  the  synoptic  writers  make  no  men- 
tion of  it.  The  Jewish  authorities  had  sought  to  put 
Lazarus  to  death,  and  they  might  make  it  dangerous 
for  any  who  would  tell  the  story  of  his  awakening. 
When  John  took  up  his  residence  in  Ephesus,  Laza- 
rus was  probably  no  longer  living.  So  John  was  at 
liberty  to  utter  freely  all  that  he  knew,  and  what  he 
knew  formed  a  supplement  to  Luke's  Gospel  not  only 
interesting,  but  also  absolutely  necessary  in  the  way  of 
explanation  and  completion.  As  I  have  said  in  another 
connection,  the  Christ  of  John's  Gospel  is  required 
to  vindicate  the  truthfulness  of  the  Synoptics.  Only 
Christ's  deity  can  explain  his  perfect  humanity.  And 
John's  Gospel  is  the  Gospel  of  Christ's  deity. 

I  have  no  doubt  that  the  original  gospel  was  en- 
tirely oral.  That  does  not  bring  suspicion  on  the 
narrative,  for  the  reason  that  memory  has  latent 
powers  which  in  our  day  of  printing  are  undeveloped. 
Memory  retains  what  it  must,  and  the  events  of  Jesus' 
life,  as  well  as  his  utterances,  came  to  seem  of  such 
importance  that  it  was  matter  of  life  and  death  to 
preserve  the  record  of  them.  For  thirty  years  after 
Jesus'  death  they  were  handed  down  by  tradition. 
There  was  an  oral  gospel,  more  or  less  complete,  pre- 
served in  parts  which  suited  the  needs  of  each  Chris- 
tian community,  but  in  parts  which  when  put  together 


JOHN    THE    COMPLEMENT    OF    LUKE  I3I 

made  a  coherent  whole.  The  human  aspect  of  Christ's 
hfe  had  gained  its  hold  upon  the  churches.  Even 
thus  early,  however,  Ebionites,  like  Cerinthus,  so  ex- 
aggerated the  human  as  really  to  deny  the  divine.  It 
was  John's  mission  to  rescue  the  church  from  a  de- 
grading heresy  by  giving  his  testimony  that  Christ  was 
the  Eternal  Word,  who  was  with  God  in  the  begin- 
ning, and  who  was  himself  God.  This  he  did  for 
many  years  by  oral  utterance,  using  Luke's  Gospel 
for  his  text,  making  it  the  basis  of  his  preaching,  but 
supplementing  it  with  reminiscences  and  reflections  of 
his  own  which  he  ultimately  reduced  to  writing. 

Time  will  not  permit  a  full  account  of  the  many 
points  in  which  Luke  and  John  are  interlaced  and 
complementary  to  one  another.  I  must  select  a  few 
characteristic  examples  and  must  let  them  suffice. 
And  the  first  is,  of  course,  found  in  the  prologue  of 
John's  Gospel.  Luke  had  traced  everything  from  the 
beginning  {avco^ev),  but  John  finds  an  earlier  begin- 
ning. Luke  carried  the  genealogy  of  Jesus  back 
through  David  and  Abraham  to  Adam,  the  son  of 
God;  but  John  goes  back  to  eternity  past,  and  sees  in 
Christ  none  other  than  Deity  revealed.  He  does  not 
tell  the  story  of  Jesus'  birth  because  Luke  had  already 
narrated  it,  and  the  Ephesians  were  familiar  with  it. 
But  he  can  supplement  it  with  his  own  insight  into  its 
meaning,  and  can  express  the  truth  in  language  which 
he  had  learned  from  the  Alexandrian  philosophy  in 
the  rabbinical  school  at  Jerusalem.  There  he  had 
heard  of  the  Logos,  the  formative  law  of  nature,  the 
ideal  of  perfection,  the  firstborn  Son  of  God.  But 
the  rabbins  had  never  gotten  beyond  the  existence  of 


132  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

this  Logos  in  the  thought  of  God.  John  had  learned 
from  his  acquaintance  with  Jesus  that  this  Logos  was 
an  actual  and  not  merely  an  ideal  person.  Jesus'  own 
words,  "  Before  Abraham  was  born,  I  am,"  and  "  The 
glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the  world  was," 
had  shown  him  that  Jesus'  personality  transcended  all 
space  and  time,  reached  back  into  eternity  past,  and 
was  bound  up  with  the  personality  of  God  himself. 
Jesus  is  the  Word  made  flesh,  deity  revealed,  divinity 
brought  down  to  our  human  comprehension  and 
engaged  in  the  work  of  our  salvation. 

This  is  John's  interpretation  of  Jesus'  life,  under 
the  influence  of  the  promised  Spirit  of  God.  John  does 
not  say  that  Jesus  used  the  word  "  Logos  "  of  himself, 
or  that  he  derived  the  knowledge  of  it  from  Jesus. 
The  form  comes  from  John's  early  training,  though  the 
substance  has  been  taught  him  from  on  high.  He 
therefore  gives  us  the  term  Logos  only  in  his  prologue. 
It  constitutes  his  thesis.  The  Gospel  is  its  proof. 
When,  in  spite  of  the  growing  enmity  and  rejection  of 
the  Jews,  the  last  doubter  among  the  apostles  is  won, 
and  Thomas  bows  at  Jesus'  feet,  crying,  "  My  Lord  and 
my  God !  "  John's  thesis  is  proved,  and  the  Gospel 
comes  to  its  intended  end,  the  last  chapter  being  sub- 
sequently added  to  correct  a  prevalent  belief  that 
Jesus  had  promised  to  its  author  an  immortality  on 
earth.  John's  Logos-doctrine  confirms  Luke's  account 
of  the  immaculate  conception,  and  gives  the  reason 
for  it;  indeed,  it  is  still  possible  that  the  original  text 
in  John  i  :  13  referred,  as  an  extant  reading  would 
have  it,  not  to  believers,  but  to  Christ,  "  who  was  born, 
not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the 


JOHN   THE    COMPLEMENT    OF    LUKE  I33 

will  of  man,  but  of  God."  The  terminology  of  John 
came  from  Philo,  but  the  doctrine  itself  came  from 
God.  John  was  not  even  its  sole  discoverer  and  pub- 
lisher, for  Paul,  in  his  letter  to  the  Colossians,  before 
John  came  to  Ephesus,  declared  Christ  to  be  "  the 
image  of  the  invisible  God,  the  firstborn  of  all  creation  ; 
for  in  him  were  all  things  created,  in  the  heavens  and 
upon  the  earth,  things  visible  and  things  invisible, 
whether  thrones  or  dominions  or  principalities  or 
powers;  all  things  have  been  created  through  him 
and  unto  him ;  and  he  is  before  all  things,  and  in  him 
all  things  consist." 

It  has  been  said  by  Bruce  that  we  have  no  trace  in 
Luke's  Gospel  of  a  doctrine  of  the  atonement.  I  do 
not  think  this  statement  correct,  for  Luke  tells  us  of 
the  baptism  of  suffering  and  death  which  Christ  was 
to  undergo,  and  quotes  Jesus'  words  at  the  last  supper 
in  which  he  says  of  the  bread,  "  This  is  my  body  which 
is  given  for  you,"  and  of  the  wine:  "  This  cup  is  the 
new  covenant  in  my  blood,  even  that  which  is  poured 
out  for  you."  But  if  there  were  in  Luke  any  lack  of 
clearness  in  proclaiming  the  doctrine  of  atonement, 
surely  John's  account  of  the  Baptist's  testimony  would 
fill  the  gap.  He  has  before  him  Luke's  story  of  the 
Baptist's  stern  and  minatory  preaching  and  the  Bap- 
tist's announcement  of  the  Judge  who  was  standing  at 
the  door.  John  tells  us  what  sort  of  deliverance  the 
Messiah  is  to  bring,  for  he  gives  the  Baptist's  designa- 
tion of  Christ  as  ''  the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away 
the  sin  of  the  world."  This,  indeed,  was  the  message 
which  drew  the  heart  of  John  to  Christ.  Like  Luther, 
the  young  man  was  seeking  a  gracious  God.     That 


134  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

search  led  him  to  the  Baptist.  And  the  singular,  Ids, 
"  behold !  "  seems  to  be  directed  to  John  himself,  and 
points  him  to  One  who  is  the  sacrifice  for  sin,  who 
pays  the  debt  of  the  guilty,  who  reconciles  sinful  men 
to  the  holy  God.  Luke  had  used  the  words  "  grace  " 
and  "  glory  "  in  his  account  of  the  annunciation  to 
Mary  and  to  the  shepherds;  John  uses  these  same 
words  to  describe  the  impression  which  Jesus  made 
upon  his  followers :  "  For  the  Word  became  flesh  and 
dwelt  among  us,  and  we  beheld  his  glory,  glory  as  of 
the  only-begotten  from  the  Father,  full  of  grace  and 
truth." 

In  Luke  there  is  a  chasm  between  Jesus'  baptism  and 
his  ministry  in  Galilee.  John  shows  how  the  new 
grew  out  of  the  old.  He  fills  the  vacancy  by  telling 
us  that  Jesus  returned  to  the  Baptist  after  his  baptism 
and  then  received  his  testimony,  only  gradually  begin- 
ning to  preach  and  winning  the  best  of  the  Baptist's 
disciples.  Without  John's  account,  Luke's  narratives 
of  Christ's  beginnings  in  Galilee  would  lack  all  proper 
connection  with  the  narrative  of  his  baptism.  John 
tells  us  of  the  marriage  at  Cana — possibly  the  mar- 
riage of  Jesus'  own  sister — and  of  the  presence  there 
of  Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus ;  but  he  tells  us  nothing 
of  Jesus'  temptation  because  Luke  had  narrated  it. 
John  tells  us  of  the  first  cleansing  of  the  temple  and  of 
Christ's  nocturnal  interview  with  Nicodemus,  and  the 
natural  inference  is  that  while  the  other  disciples  re- 
mained in  Capernaum  after  their  return  from  the 
Jordan,  John,  who  had  a  home  in  Jerusalem,  was  with 
Christ,  and  was  the  witness  and  recorder  of  his  Judean 
ministry.     Luke  had  told  of  Jesus'  visit  to  Nazareth, 


JOHN    THE    COMPLEMENT    OF    LUKE  135 

and  John  omits  it;  Luke  had  not  told  of  the  Saviour's 
talk  with  the  Samaritan  woman  on  the  way  to  Gali- 
lee, and  therefore  John  relates  it.  When  Jesus  goes 
up  alone  to  Jerusalem,  John  is  there  to  report  the  cure 
of  the  paralytic,  and  to  hear,  possibly  from  Nicodemus, 
of  the  rising  enmity  of  the  Pharisees.  From  Luke 
alone  we  should  never  know  why  the  Pharisees  sent 
their  emissaries  to  Galilee  to  gather  evidence  against 
Jesus.  In  fact,  it  is  John  who  relates  four  journeys 
of  Jesus  to  Jerusalem,  while  Luke  gives  us  only  two. 
John's  Gospel  is  therefore  the  basis  of  our  chronology 
of  Jesus'  life,  and  is  indispensable  as  the  completion 
and  explanation  of  Luke's  story. 

John's  return  from  his  private  visit  to  Jerusalem 
marks  the  close  of  the  Judean  and  the  beginning  of 
the  Galilean  ministry.  The  first  year  of  Christ's  work 
was,  roughly  speaking,  a  year  of  appeal  to  the  Jewish 
authorities;  the  second  year  was  a  year  of  appeal  to 
the  Jewish  people.  Now  comes  the  second  calling  of 
his  apostles.  It  had  doubtless  been  expected  and 
longed  for.  There  is  a  temporary  popularity.  So  long 
as  the  multitude  could  cherish  hopes  of  revolution,  and 
could  expect  a  miraculous  supply  of  their  physical 
wants,  Jesus  was  sure  of  a  following.  But  his  spirit- 
ual demands  are  too  great  for  weak  human  nature. 
The  Pharisees  poison  the  minds  of  the  crowd  against 
him,  and  the  people  forsake  him.  There  is  a  rising 
tide  of  opposition  which  presages  condemnation  and 
death.  Between  the  fifth  and  the  sixth  chapters  of 
John's  Gospel  there  is  a  cleft  which  only  Luke's  Gos- 
pel enables  us  to  fill.  But  John  knows  this  link  of 
connection  to  be  in  the  hands  of  his  readers,  and  he 


136  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

only  shows  us  how  it  was  that  the  people  came  to  take 
sides  with  the  Pharisees.  He  tells  us  that  the  chief 
priests,  who  were  Sadducees,  were  now  added  to  the 
number  of  Christ's  enemies.  Since  the  Sanhedrin  has 
passed  a  decree  against  him,  and  has  sent  officers  to 
take  him,  Jesus  predicts  his  own  death  and  goes  to 
meet  it.  Luke  tells  us  of  the  end  of  the  battle,  and  of 
Jesus'  leaving  Capernaum,  but  only  John  tells  us  why. 

The  journey  to  Jerusalem  is  a  gradual  progress. 
The  way  lies  beyond  Jordan.  There  is  a  great  con- 
geries of  parables,  discourses,  and  miracles  which  only 
Luke  records.  The  parables  of  the  Good  Samaritan, 
the  Friend  at  Midnight,  the  Rich  Fool,  the  Guests' 
Excuses,  the  Lost  Sheep,  the  Lost  Money,  the  Lost 
Son,  the  Unrighteous  Steward,  Dives  and  Lazarus, 
the  Unjust  Judge,  the  Pharisee  and  the  Publican,  the 
Ten  Pounds,  the  Cumbering  Fig  Tree;  the  miracles 
performed  on  the  woman  with  a  spirit  of  infirmity,  the 
man  afflicted  with  dropsy,  the  ten  lepers;  the  dis- 
courses at  the  sending  out  of  the  Seventy  and  on  their 
return,  with  regard  to  prayer,  trust  in  God,  and  coming 
judgment,  the  Galileans  slain  by  Pilate,  whether  few 
are  saved,  the  lament  over  Jerusalem,  on  counting  the 
cost,  on  forgiveness  and  faith,  on  the  kingdom  that 
cometh  not  with  observation,  on  Zacchaeus  as  also  a 
son  of  Abraham — all  these  wonderful  revelations  of 
truth  and  power  are  peculiar  to  Luke,  and  they  are 
not  related  by  John.  John  tells  us  why  Jesus  was 
compelled  to  leave  Galilee  and  to  spend  so  long  an 
interval  in  Perea;  Luke  gives  us  the  result  in  that 
marvelous  cluster  of  parables  and  miracles  which  form 
so  unique  a  feature  of  his  Gospel 


JOHN    THE    COMPLEMENT    OF    LUKE  I37 

The  year  of  appeal  to  the  Jewish  people  had  proved 
as  futile  as  the  previous  year  of  appeal  to  the  Jewish 
authorities.  This  breathing-spell  in  Perea  constitutes 
the  last  year  of  Jesus'  life,  and  it  is  an  appeal  to  his 
own  chosen  circle  of  disciples.  He  would  fit  them  to 
preach  the  gospel  after  his  death.  He  betakes  himself 
with  his  apostles  to  the  wilds  beyond  the  Jordan  for 
privacy,  and  to  escape  the  machinations  of  the  Jews. 
There  he  shapes  the  pillars  of  his  future  church.  But 
even  this  work  comes  soon  to  an  end.  How  strange 
it  is  that  Luke  throws  no  light  upon  the  sudden  break- 
ing up  of  our  Lord's  seclusion  and  his  venturing  an 
approach  to  Jerusalem!  It  is  John  who  supplements 
Luke's  Galilean  informants  as  to  the  closing  week  of 
Jesus'  life.  The  death  of  Lazarus  draws  Jesus  to 
Bethany,  and  it  is  Lazarus'  resurrection  that  precipi- 
tates Jesus'  apprehension  and  condemnation.  We  have 
seen  a  reason  why  Luke  should  be  silent,  so  long  as 
Lazarus  was  aHve  and  was  in  danger  from  the  Jews, 
and  we  owe  to  John  alone  the  account  of  that  wonder- 
ful and  fateful  miracle.  But  we  could  not  fully  under- 
stand even  John,  if  Luke  had  not  previously  told  of 
Jesus'  intimacy  with  Mary  and  Martha  and  Lazarus. 
Jesus'  friendship  for  that  family  of  Bethany  was  such 
that  he  gave  his  own  life  for  his  friends.  Luke,  how- 
ever, mentions  only  the  place ;  John  gives  us  the  time. 
Luke  tells  us  of  the  crowd  that  accompanied  Jesus  to 
the  holy  city ;  John  tells  us  whence  they  came,  namely, 
from  Jerusalem  itself.  Mary's  anointing  and  Judas' 
reproof  are  peculiar  to  the  fourth  Gospel,  but  they  are 
so  interwoven  with  Luke's  narrative  as  to  indicate 
John's  intention  to  complete  it. 


138  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

John  gives  us  no  account  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
though  he  was  sent  with  Peter  to  prepare  for  it.  How 
can  that  be  explained  except  by  supposing  that  he  had 
Luke's  Gospel  before  him?  The  long  report  of  Jesus' 
discourse  and  prayer  makes  up  for  the  lack.  But  there 
are  graphic  touches  besides.  Jesus  rose  to  wash  the 
disciples'  feet;  he  must  have  been  sitting.  He  an- 
nounces his  betrayal :  this  rouses  Judas  to  execute  his 
plan.  John  gives  no  words  of  Christ's"  passion  in  Geth- 
semane,  for  Luke  had  given  them  already.  But  he 
does  tell  the  effect  of  Jesus'  majesty  upon  the  servants, 
and  he  adds  Jesus'  request,  "  Let  these  go  their  way," 
to  show  how  easy  it  would  have  been  for  Jesus  to 
escape,  and  how  careful  he  was  to  shield  his  disciples. 
He  adds  the  name  *'  Malchus  "  to  Luke's  telling  of 
Peter's  sword.  John  does  not  mention  Jesus'  taking 
three  to  watch  with  him.  He  conceals  his  own  per- 
sonality.    Mark,  Peter's  interpreter,  alone  gives  this. 

John  describes  the  preliminary  examination  before 
Annas,  while  Caiaphas  summons  the  Sanhedrin;  but 
he  leaves  Luke  to  tell  of  the  trial  before  Caiaphas. 
Perhaps  John  was  not  there,  but  had  gone  to  recover 
Peter  after  his  denial.  John  has  not  denied  his  Lord, 
though  the  maidservant's  words,  "  Thou  too,"  to  Peter 
indicates  that  John  was  now  known  to  be  a  disciple. 
Luke  states  the  result  of  the  trial  before  Pilate,  but 
he  does  not  explain  the  steps  which  led  to  it.  What 
occurred  in  Pilate's  palace  must  have  been  told  by 
Jesus  himself,  for  neither  Jews  nor  disciples  entered 
there.  Only  John  reveals  the  deepest  ground  of  com- 
plaint on  the  part  of  Christ's  enemies  when  he  shows 
them  accusing  Jesus  of  claiming  to  be  the  Son  of  God. 


JOHN    THE    COMPLEMENT    OF    LUKE  I39 

John's  narrative  of  the  crucifixion,  the  entombment, 
and  the  resurrection  is  fragmentary  in  itself,  but  with 
Luke's  it  is  complete.  John  explains  the  term  "  Gol- 
gotha." He  mentions  the  quadruple  of  soldiers.  He 
shows  how  the  Lord  who  forgave  his  enemies  could 
care  for  his  friends  when  his  mother  and  the  penitent 
thief  alike  received  the  blessing.  The  words,  ''  I  thirst," 
and  "  It  is  finished,"  are  peculiar  to  John.  The  piercing 
of  Jesus'  side  shows  that  there  was  no  need  of  break- 
ing his  legs,  and  John  sees  in  this  a  fulfilment  of  the 
prediction  that  "  a  bone  of  him  shall  not  be  broken." 
Luke  had  told  of  Joseph's  providing  Jesus'  tomb ;  John 
adds  that  Nicodemus  brought  a  hundred  pounds  of 
spices.  Luke  tells  us  of  the  women  coming  to  the 
sepulcher ;  only  John  tells  of  Jesus'  appearance  to  Mary. 
Luke  describes  the  manifestation  of  the  Lord  to  the 
disciples  at  Emmaus;  only  John  tells  of  Jesus'  second 
appearance  to  his  apostles  when  the  doors  were  shut, 
when  he  showed  his  wounded  side,  and  when  he  won 
the  doubting  Thomas  to  faith  in  his  Lordship  and 
Deity. 

The  ascension  was  a  marvelous  event  and  most 
important  to  the  Gospel  narrative.  Why  does  not  John 
mention  it?  Simply  because  Luke  had  told  of  it  al- 
ready. There  is  no  antithesis  or  evasion  here.  The 
omission  confirms  the  previous  record.  Luke  is 
vouched  for.  Indeed,  his  Gospel  may  be  indirectly 
alluded  to  when  John  says :  ^'  Many  other  signs  there- 
fore did  Jesus  in  the  presence  of  the  disciples,  which 
are  not  written  in  this  book,  but  these  are  written  that 
ye  may  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God,  and  that  believing  ye  may  have  life  in  his  name." 


140  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

"  This  book  "  may  possibly  imply  the  existence  of  an 
earlier  book  already  in  the  possession  of  the  Ephesian 
Christians.  What  John  did  not  write  Luke  had  already 
written,  and  the  testimony  of  both  is  that  Jesus  is  the 
Messiah,  the  Son  of  God,  and  that  life  and  salvation 
are  to  be  found  only  in  personal  union  with  him. 

Students  of  the  New  Testament  history  have  very 
commonly  been  puzzled  by  the  omission  in  the  fourth 
Gospel  of  all  mention  of  Jesus'  birth  and  childhood, 
his  temptation  in  the  wilderness,  his  rejection  at  Naza- 
reth, his  miracles  in  Capernaum,  his  choosing  of  the 
Twelve,  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  the  parables  by 
the  sea,  the  Gadarene  demoniac,  the  raising  of  Jairus' 
daughter,  the  mission  of  the  Twelve  and  of  the 
Seventy,  the  confession  of  Peter,  the  transfiguration, 
the  discourses  against  the  Pharisees,  the  Rich  Young 
Ruler,  the  predictions  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
and  the  end  of  the  world,  the  institution  of  the  last 
supper,  the  walk  to  Emmaus,  the  ascension.  This 
omission  is  now  satisfactorily  accounted  for.  John's 
readers  had  all  these  before  them  in  another  book, 
which  it  is  his  purpose  only  to  supplement  and  complete. 
He  narrates  the  same  matters  of  which  Luke  had 
written,  only  when  he  can  add  new  incidents  or  con- 
firmations from  his  own  observation  and  experience, 
as,  for  example,  when  he  tells  the  story  of  the  feeding 
of  the  five  thousand  as  a  text  for  Jesus'  declaration  of 
himself  as  the  Bread  of  Life,  or  when  he  adds  the 
account  of  Thomas'  conversion  to  Luke's  report  of 
Christ's  second  appearance  to  the  disciples  after  his 
resurrection.  Throughout  John's  Gospel  there  is  an 
avoidance  of  incidents  related  by  Luke,  and  a  studious 


JOHN    THE    COMPLEMENT    OF    LUKE  I4I 

silence  with  regard  to  what  had  been  already  written, 
a  silence  so  discriminating  and  complete  as  to  preclude 
all  possibility  of  its  being  accidental. 

But  the  argument  is  not  perfectly  conclusive  if  we 
leave  it  here.  The  things  which  John  does  say  are 
more  important  than  those  which  he  omits.  The  testi- 
mony of  John  the  Baptist,  the  miracle  at  Cana,  the 
conversations  with  Nicodemus  and  the  woman  of  Sa- 
maria, the  healings  of  the  nobleman's  son,  of  the  infirm 
man  at  the  pool  of  Bethesda,  of  the  man  born  blind, 
Jesus'  proclamation  of  himself  as  the  Bread  of  Life, 
as  the  Light  of  the  World,  as  the  Good  Shepherd,  his 
answer  to  the  Greeks  who  sought  him,  his  raising  of 
Lazarus,  his  farewell  discourses  and  his  intercessory 
prayer — all  these  are  not  only  sublime  disclosures  in 
themselves,  but  they  so  fit  into  gaps  in  Luke's  Gospel 
as  to  convince  us  that  there  was  design  in  the  relation 
of  them.  Every  convexity  of  the  one,  whether  great 
or  small,  so  answers  to  a  concavity  in  the  other  as  to 
render  it  well-nigh  certain  that  the  purpose  of  the  au- 
thor was  to  turn  what  might  have  seemed  to  some  a 
merely  human  gospel  into  the  record  of  a  divine  life 
lived  upon  the  earth.  But  John's  Gospel  does  not  come 
to  us  as  an  antithesis  or  contrast  to  the  Gospel  of  Luke. 
It  only  brings  out  Luke's  real  meaning,  or  the  meaning 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  who  inspired  Luke's  writing,  and 
was  promised  to  lead  Christ's  followers  into  all  the 
truth  as  it  was  in  Jesus. 

My  treatment  of  this  large  subject  has  been  a  very 
meager  and  hasty  one,  but  I  trust  it  has  led  to  certain 
reasonable  conclusions.  Let  me  summarize  them  as 
follows : 


142  THE    BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

1.  John  follows  Luke,  and  is  not  to  be  considered 
as  an  independent  narrative. 

2.  Luke  is  already  well  known  and  only  needs  sup- 
plementing. 

3.  John's  supplementary  matter,  with  a  single  ex- 
ception, consists  only  of  personal  reminiscences. 

4.  That  exception  is  the  philosophical  prologue 
which  adopts  a  great  word  from  the  rabbins,  but  fills 
it  with  a  new  and  personal  meaning. 

5.  John's  Gospel  is  intended  to  complete  the  Gospel 
of  Luke,  and  with  this  to  constitute  one  historical 
narrative. 

6.  Its  record  of  events  and  of  discourses  is  so  minute 
and  exact  that  it  can  be  the  work  only  of  the  apostle 
John. 

7.  The  origin  of  its  Logos-doctrines  must  be  re- 
ferred, not  to  Ephesus  and  to  the  influence  of  Alexan- 
drian philosophy  there,  but  to  Jerusalem  and  to  the 
schools  of  the  rabbins,  where  both  John  and  Paul  had 
studied. 

8.  The  Logos-doctrine  itself  is  absolutely  needed  to 
supplement  the  picture  of  Jesus  as  given  us  by  the 
Synoptics,  and  it  was  substantially  the  teaching  of 
Paul  before  John  wrote  his  Gospel. 

9.  The  divine  aspect  of  our  Lord's  personality  is  as 
essential  as  the  human  aspect,  and  Christ  is  none  other 
than  God  manifest  in  the  flesh. 

10.  John's  Gospel  relieves  Luke's  from  the  charge 
of  being  a  merely  humanitarian  picture  of  Christ's  re- 
ligion, and  makes  Christianity  to  be  nothing  less  than 
a  vital  and  personal  union  of  the  human  spirit  with 
the  omnipresent  and  omnipotent  Christ. 


THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES 

We  pass  to-day  from  the  study  of  the  Gospels  to  the 
study  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  from  the  study  of 
Christ's  work  for  us  to  the  study  of  Christ's  work  in 
us  and  in  his  church. 

The  author  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  Luke.  We 
have  plenty  of  external  evidence  to  Luke's  author- 
ship in  the  testimonies  of  the  church  Fathers,  Irenseus, 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  Tertullian,  and  Eusebius,  tes- 
timonies which  I  need  not  narrate  to  you ;  but  we  have 
internal  evidence  also,  with  which  all  of  you  are  more 
or  less  familiar,  and  w^hich,  when  it  is  set  forth  in  order, 
is  exceedingly  convincing. 

Luke  begins  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  with  a  refer- 
ence to  the  former  treatise,  and  that  former  treatise, 
as  it  is  addressed  to  Theophilus,  just  as  the  Acts  is, 
makes  it  quite  certain  that  Luke  himself,  and  no  other, 
is  the  author  of  the  Acts  as  well  as  of  the  Gospel. 

Then  we  have  similarities  of  style  in  the  Gospel  and 
in  the  Acts  which  cannot  possibly  be  accidental.  It 
will  perhaps  interest  those  of  you  w^io  are  familiar 
with  the  Greek  to  know  that  we  have  the  use  of  verbs 
compounded  with  prepositions,  in  Luke  and  in  Acts, 
to  an  extent  not  at  all  paralleled  by  any  other  of  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament.  We  have  the  use  of  the 
preposition  auv,  for  example,  to  a  remarkable  extent, 
as  we  have  not  in  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  of  Mark, 
or  of  John.     While  we  have  that  preposition  used  in 

143 


144  THE    BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Matthew  only  three  times,  we  have  that  preposition 
used  in  the  Gospel  according  to  Luke  twenty-four 
times,  and  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  fifty-one  times, 
showing  that  there  is  marked  similarity  of  style  in  this 
particular.  We  have  the  Greek  verb  Tiopeuead-cu,  to  go, 
hardly  used  at  all,  used  very  sparingly  indeed  in  other 
portions  of  the  New  Testament;  but  in  Luke's  Gospel 
we  find  it  forty-nine  times,  and  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles thirty-eight  times,  showing  that  the  peculiarities  of 
the  one  are  peculiarities  of  the  other. 

There  are  other  connections  of  the  Gospel  and  the 
Acts  in  the  fact  that  the  earlier  portion  of  the  Gospel, 
in  which  Luke  seems  to  have  material  made  ready  to 
his  hand,  is  Hebraistic  in  its  style.  He  shows  his 
faithfulness  to  his  authorities  by  accepting  the  very 
words  of  the  original,  in  many  cases,  while  the  latter 
portions  of  the  Gospel  are  written  in  a  more  pure 
Greek.  Now  that  is  precisely  the  case  with  the  Acts. 
The  earlier  portions  of  the  Acts,  which  have  to  do  with 
transactions  within  the  bounds  of  the  church  in  Pales- 
tine, are  somewhat  Hebraistic  in  their  style;  and  the 
latter  portion  of  the  Acts,  which  narrates  events  of 
which  Luke  was  in  part  an  eye-witness,  is  written  in 
Greek  of  a  better  style,  a  more  classical  Greek.  Now 
this  correspondence  between  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts 
tends  to  show  that  the  same  person  was  the  author  of 
both. 

Then  we  find  that  there  are  striking  coincidences  be- 
tween the  speeches  of  Peter  and  Paul  and  James  in 
the  Acts  and  in  the  Epistles.  We  have  from  those 
same  persons  in  each  case  not  only  the  same  general 
train  of  thought,  but  also  expressions  which  indicate  a 


THE   ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES  I45 

peculiar  authorship.  You  remember  that  great  work 
of  Paley,  ^'  Horco  PaulincE/'  the  object  of  which  was 
to  show  that  the  Acts  and  the  Epistles  show  wonder- 
ful correspondence ;  that  the  Acts  confirms  the  Epistles 
and  that  the  Epistles  confirm  the  Acts;  that  there  are 
remarkable  agreements  between  them  which  would  not 
have  been  possible  if  the  Acts  had  not  been  a  historical 
document,  and  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Epistles  had 
not  been  written  by  the  very  men  to  whom  they  are 
attributed.  Here  are  proofs  that  Luke  was  the  author 
of  the  Acts,  and  proof  also  that  Luke's  work  is  veri- 
table history. 

The  date  at  which  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  was 
written  I  think  can  be  determined  within  a  narrow 
limit,  since  Luke  was  the  author.  It  is  a  continuation 
of  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  or  rather  it  is  a  work  by  the 
same  author  with  the  intent  of  making  it  a  supplement 
to  the  Gospel;  and,  being  a  supplement  to  the  Gospel, 
we  are  warranted  in  saying,  as  we  said  in  discussing 
the  Gospel  itself,  that  in  this  book  Luke  represents 
Paul.  Luke  does  not  write  at  his  own  motion,  or  upon 
his  own  responsibility.  The  apostle  Paul  furnishes  a 
large  part  of  the  material;  the  apostle  Paul  sanctions 
the  work;  the  apostle  Paul  probably  supervises  the 
work;  and,  therefore,  we  are  warranted  in  believing 
that,  as  the  Gospel  according  to  Luke  was  probably 
written  toward  the  close  of  Paul's  imprisonment  at 
Caesarea,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  was  probably  written 
before  the  close  of  Paul's  first  imprisonment  at  Rome. 
As  we  may  date  the  Gospel  some  time  not  after  the 
year  59,  so  it  is  proper  to  date  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
not  much  before  the  year  61,  or  toward  the  end  of  it. 

K 


146  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

You  remember  that  the  Acts,  although  it  narrates 
Paul's  journey  to  Rome,  narrates  Paul's  preaching  at 
Rome,  speaks  of  Paul's  imprisonment  at  Rome  for  two 
whole  years,  speaks  of  Paul's  addresses  to  the  Jews  at 
Rome,  yet  does  not  give  an  account  of  the  close  of 
Paul's  imprisonment  at  Rome.  It  is  very  certain  that 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  was  written  before  the  close 
of  Paul's  imprisonment.  It  is  almost  impossible  that 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  should  have  been  written  after 
the  close  of  Paul's  imprisonment;  for,  if  Luke  had 
known  of  the  issue  of  that  imprisonment,  that  re- 
markable event  which  formed  so  natural  a  close  of  the 
apostle  Paul's  life  would  undoubtedly  have  been  itself 
narrated  and  described.  The  fact  that  he  leaves  Paul 
at  the  end  of  that  two  years'  imprisonment,  without 
indicating  when  that  imprisonment  terminated  and 
what  the  result  of  it  was,  is  to  my  mind  evidence  that 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  must  have  been  written  before 
the  close  of  that  imprisonment,  and  that  the  only  reason 
Luke  does  not  tell  us  what  the  result  was  in  that  case 
is  simply  that  he  did  not  know,  simply  because  the 
result  had  not  yet  taken  place.  So  I  think  we  may 
put  the  date  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  before  the 
close  of  the  year  61,  as  we  put  the  date  of  the  Gospel 
according  to  Luke  before  the  year  59. 

Now  this  fact  will  throw  considerable  light  upon  the 
circumstances  in  which  the  Acts  was  written.  You 
must  remember  that  Paul  had  had  already  twenty 
years  of  experience  in  preaching  and  speaking.  That 
imprisonment  at  Csesarea  was  apparently  ordered  by 
divine  providence,  like  the  imprisonment  of  John 
Bunyan  in  Bedford  jail,  in  order  that  he  might,  in 


THE    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES  I47 

solitary  meditation  and  leisure,  collect  the  results  of 
what  he  had  orally  uttered,  and  prepare  them  to  be 
put  into  permanent  and  written  form. 

As  the  imprisonment  at  Csesarea,  during  which  Luke 
had  access  to  Paul,  as  also  did  the  other  friends  of 
Paul,  was  a  time  when  Luke  might  have  had  constant 
conversation  with  the  apostle,  and  yet  at  the  same 
time  been  perfectly  free  to  consult  the  earlier  apostles 
and  secure  the  material  that  was  used  in  his  Gospel; 
so  we  may  believe  that  the  imprisonment  of  Paul  at 
Rome  was  also  used  for  the  purpose  of  putting  to- 
gether the  narration  of  the  wonderful  way  in  which 
God  had  led  him  in  his  apostolic  labors,  and  in  which 
material  that  had  been  previously  collected  in  Palestine 
might  be  supplemented  by  other  material  furnished  by 
Paul  in  Rome;  so  that  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  in  its 
complete  form  might  be  the  result. 

In  Csesarea,  you  remember,  Philip  the  deacon  re- 
sided. It  was  in  Csesarea  that  Cornelius  had  lived ;  and 
all  the  evidence  in  connection  with  the  preaching  of 
Philip  and  in  connection  with  the  evangelization  of 
Caesarea  was  right  there  at  hand.  The  persons  who 
were  most  interested  were  ready  to  communicate  what 
they  knew;  and  there  was  a  multitude  of  other  oppor- 
tunities by  which  Luke  might  get  at  his  material, 
might  be  directed  in  the  putting  of  it  together  by  the 
great  apostle. 

It  seems  to  me  that  this  fact,  that  the  temporary 
ceasing  of  the  apostle's  public  labors  was  thus  made 
the  means  of  a  far  greater  permanent  benefit  to  the 
church  of  God  than  even  his  public  and  oral  preach- 
ing of  the  gospel  could  have  been,  is  full  of  suggestion 


148  THE    BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

to  US.  Paul  calls  himself  a  prisoner  of  Jesus  Christ; 
and  yet  he  is  perhaps  of  more  service  to  Jesus  Christ 
while  he  is  a  prisoner,  in  comforting  the  saints  and  in 
preparing-  a  message  of  instruction  to  the  church  of 
God  through  all  coming  time,  than  he  could  have  been 
in  his  oral  discourses  and  his  public  labors;  and  so 
there  is  many  a  saint  of  God  laid  aside  for  a  time  by 
divine  providence,  prevented  from  mingling  with  the 
world,  who,  in  that  very  imprisonment,  so  to  speak, 
may  be  gaining  new  strength  by  reflection  and  prayer, 
and  may  be  actually  doing  more  for  the  world  than 
he  could  have  done  had  God  permitted  him  to  go 
about  in  his  accustomed  way.  Imprisonment  and  se- 
clusion are  not  the  worst  things  for  the  saints  of  God. 
It  certainly  was  not  so  in  the  case  of  the  apostle  Paul. 
I  believe  that  these  two  imprisonments  have  resulted 
partly  in  giving  to  us  not  only  a  number  of  Paul's 
Epistles,  but  also  the  Gospel  according  to  Luke  and  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

This  designation,  "  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,"  is 
very  interesting  in  itself.  In  the  Sinaitic  manuscript 
the  only  designation  given  is  "  The  Acts."  I  think  it 
probable  that  this  was  the  original  title.  Certain  it  is 
that  Luke's  Gospel  has  no  author's  name,  and  it  is 
equally  certain  that  no  author's  name  is  given  to  the 
Acts.  The  Acts  is  anonymous,  not  only  so  far  as  its 
authorship  is  concerned,  but  also  in  the  fact  that  in  it 
the  name  of  Luke  does  not  even  once  occur.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  it  is  not  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  in 
any  such  sense  as  we  are  ordinarily  inclined  to  believe. 
That  phrase,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  would  give  us 
the  impression  of  a  continuous  and  complete  history 


THE    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES  I49 

of  the  apostolic  labors  and  sufferings.  Now  it  is  very 
far  from  being  the  case  that  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
is  such  a  document  as  this.  Why,  we  have  no  history 
of  the  church  in  Jerusalem  and  of  the  work  of  the 
apostles  there  after  the  imprisonment  and  the  deliver- 
ance of  Peter!  All  that  we  know  with  regard  to  the 
great  church  in  Jerusalem  is  what  we  know  previous 
to  that  time ;  and  then  we  know  absolutely  nothing  of 
the  introduction  of  the  gospel  at  Rome,  which  might 
be  conceived  by  us  as  the  most  important  epoch  in 
church  history.  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  tells  us 
nothing  about  that.  Moreover,  we  have  not  here  a 
record  of  the  labors  and  sufferings  of  a  great  majority 
of  the  apostles.  The  Eleven  are  mentioned,  indeed, 
and  the  filling  up  of  their  number  by  the  election  of 
Matthias  is  spoken  of  at  the  first;  but  yet  we  hardly 
have  the  eleven  mentioned  before  they  drop  out  of 
sight;  and,  besides  the  intimation  that  they  exist,  once 
or  twice  afterward,  we  have  hardly  any  account  of 
them.  And  even  with  regard  to  the  labors  and  suffer- 
ings of  Paul,  how  much  there  is  that  is  not  related  to 
us !  Paul  has  told  us  with  regard  to  his  sufferings,  his 
scourgings,  his  shipwrecks,  his  perils  in  journey ings 
and  perils  at  sea,  his  troubles  through  false  brethren 
and  through  imprisonment.  Not  a  tenth  part  of  all 
this  is  told  us  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  We  should 
hardly  know  that  Paul  passed  through  that  multitude 
of  perils  and  troubles  if  it  had  not  been  for  words  of 
his  in  the  course  of  his  Epistles. 

The  Acts  does  not  give  an  account  of  the  doings  of 
the  apostle  John.  One  might  think  that  the  apostle 
John  was  just  as  important  a  person  as  Peter,  just  as 


150  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

important  a  person  as  Paul;  but  aside  from  the  fact 
that  John  appears  once  as  the  companion  of  Peter  at 
the  heaHng  of  the  lame  man  in  the  temple,  and  he  does 
not  say  anything  at  that  time,  we  have  him  mentioned 
only  three  times,  and  nothing  is  told  us  with  regard 
to  John's  individual  work  in  Palestine. 

How  curious  it  is,  then,  that,  in  what  by  its  title 
purports  to  be  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  we  have  not 
the  acts  of  very  many  of  them.  Those  things  upon 
which  curiosity  would  like  to  dwell  are  entirely  omitted. 
What,  then,  is  the  principle  of  selection  which  has  led 
the  Holy  Spirit,  out  of  the  multiplicity  of  apostolic 
movements,  to  choose  so  few,  and  to  set  only  these  be- 
fore us  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles?  I  think  we  must 
say,  first  of  all,  that  it  chiefly  indicates  that  not  all 
things  are  equally  important  in  the  history  of  the 
church  of  God.  If  so,  we  might  expect  that  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles  would  be  a  series  of  annals,  telling  us 
from  year  to  year  just  what  happened  to  the  church. 

No,  there  are  great  critical  movements  upon  which 
history  turns.  There  are  great  central  personages 
who  are  called  by  God  to  be  leaders.  There  are  great 
epochs,  when  there  are  changes  from  the  old  to  the 
new.  And  we  have  brought  to  light  this  fact  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  that  there  were  great  central 
personages,  that  there  were  great  critical  movements, 
that  there  were  great  changes ;  and  upon  those  changes 
the  whole  future  history  of  the  church  has  depended. 
It  is  upon  these  that  all  the  rays  of  divine  light  are 
made  to  converge.  We  have  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles two  foci,  as  one  might  say,  two  great  points  of 
light;  those  points  of  light  are  made  prominent,  and 


THE   ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES  151 

everything  else  is  allowed  to  recede  into  apparent 
insignificance. 

Everything  turns  here  upon  the  planting  of  the 
church  among  the  Jews  and  upon  the  planting  of  the 
church  among  the  Gentiles ;  and  there  were  two  great 
personages  who  were  instrumental  in  these  plantings 
of  the  church :  Peter  was  instrumental  as  the  apostle 
to  the  Jews,  and  Paul  was  instrumental  as  the  apostle 
to  the  Gentiles.  Around  the  movements  and  the  works 
of  these  two  apostles,  their  respective  thoughts  and 
their  proper  relation  to  each  other,  the  whole  story 
revolves. 

In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  we  find  these  two  great 
influences  set  forth:  the  setting  up  of  the  gospel  of 
the  kingdom  of  Christ  among  the  Jews,  and  the  setting 
up  of  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ  among  the 
Gentiles.  So  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  forms  a  bridge 
from  the  Gospels  to  the  Epistles. 

Here  is  something  very  important  in  our  understand- 
ing of  the  structure  of  the  New  Testament.  The 
Gospels  had  been  occupied  in  setting  forth  Christ's 
work  for  us,  Christ's  external  work  for  man,  his  per- 
son, his  incarnation,  his  teaching,  his  suffering,  his 
death,  his  resurrection.  All  this  is  naturally  followed 
by  the  account  of  Christ's  work  in  us,  Christ's  work  in 
his  church,  the  extension  of  his  gospel  to  the  world; 
and  this  we  have  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  After 
the  first  work  of  the  apostles  in  the  setting  up  of  the 
church  has  been  narrated,  we  just  as  naturally  have 
the  instructions  which  the  apostles  give  for  the  guid- 
ance and  direction  of  the  church,  and  these  we  find  in 
the  Epistles  of  the  New  Testament. 


152  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Let  me  bring  this  a  little  more  vividly  to  your 
minds  by  asking  you  a  question.  Suppose,  for  a 
moment,  you  should  just  let  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
drop  out  of  the  New  Testament  entirely.  Imagine, 
for  a  moment,  that  your  New  Testament  had  no  such 
book  as  the  Acts;  imagine  you  had  read  through  the 
Gospels  from  Matthew  to  John,  and  you  had  gotten 
before  your  mind  all  Jesus  had  done  in  his  suffering, 
death,  and  resurrection,  and  now  you  close  the  last 
page  of  the  Gospel  according  to  John  and  you  turn  to 
the  next.  Behold,  you  read,  "  Paul,  an  apostle  of  Jesus 
Christ."  "  Well,"  you  say,  "  Paul!  Paul  an  apostle  of 
Jesus  Christ?  Why,  I  have  read  nothing  about  Paul. 
Who  is  Paul?  and  where  does  Paul  come  from?  " 

Do  you  not  see  that  you  would  have  no  bridge  from 
the  Gospels  to  the  Epistles;  that  you  would  have  no 
voucher  for  the  authority  of  Paul;  that  all  these  epis- 
tles, which  form  so  large  a  part  of  the  New  Testament, 
would  have  no  authority,  simply  because  you  would 
not  know  anything  of  the  adding  of  Paul  to  the  number 
of  the  apostles?  You  would  not  know  of  Christ's 
direction  of  Paul  in  his  apostolic  labors;  you  would 
know  nothing  about  the  churches  to  which  he  preached ; 
and  you  would  know  nothing  about  him  who  preached 
to  them.  So  important,  therefore,  is  the  position  of 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  in  its  intermediate  place  be- 
tween the  Gospels  and  the  Epistles,  as  assuring  us  of  the 
authority  upon  which  the  Epistles  rest.  We  should 
not  read  the  Epistles  with  any  assurance  that  they  were 
the  word  of  God;  we  should  not  read  them  with  any 
understanding  either  of  their  office,  of  the  persons  to 
whom  they  were  written,  or  of  the  reasons  they  wrote 


THE    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES  1 53 

them,  if  it  were  not  for  what  is  told  us  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles.  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  narrating  to 
us  the  founding  of  the  church  at  two  great  critical 
points  and  the  leadership  of  two  great  men,  has  given 
us  the  connection  between  the  Gospels  and  the  Epistles, 
and  has  furnished  us  a  clue  to  all  the  remaining  part 
of  the  New  Testament. 

Now,  after  having  said  so  much  with  regard  to  the 
two  points,  the  author  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  viz., 
Luke,  and  the  title  of  the  work,  viz.,  ''  The  Acts,"  and 
after  having  explained  just  how  much  weight  and  how 
little  weight  is  to  be  attached  to  that  phrase,  I  would 
set  before  you  the  two  great  objects  of  the  Acts.  Those 
two  great  objects  are  given  to  us  in  the  Acts  them- 
selves; they  are  given  to  us  in  the  very  first  verse 
of  the  Acts;  so  that,  although  we  have  no  title,  we  do 
have  as  clear  an  indication  of  the  drift  of  it  all,  as  if 
Luke,  who  wrote  the  Acts,  had  set  down  a  title  for 
himself. 

You  remember  that  the  Acts  begins  by  speaking  of 
the  things  which  Jesus  began  both  to  do  and  to  teach, 
and  then  it  proceeds  to  narrate  what  follows.  We  have 
in  that  word  ''  began,"  I  think,  a  clue  to  Luke's  pur- 
pose, to  one  of  his  main  objects.  In  other  words,  it 
is  intimated  to  us  that  the  work  of  Christ,  when  he 
was  here  in  the  flesh,  was  only  the  beginning  of  his 
work.  It  is  intimated  to  us  that  Christ's  work  for  us 
was  only  preparatory  to  another  work  in  us;  that 
Christ's  work  for  the  church  was  only  preparatory  to 
his  work  in  the  church.  Jesus  himself  intimates  this 
when  he  promises  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  He 
says,  "  I  will  send  the  Comforter  " ;  and  then,  in  imme- 


154  THE    BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

diate  connection  with  this,  only  a  sentence  or  two  after, 
"  I  will  come  to  you."  In  other  words,  Christ  comes 
in  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is, 
in  a  proper  sense,  a  continuation  of  the  work  of  Christ. 

We  have  in  the  Gospels,  then,  the  beginning  of 
Christ's  work  upon  the  earth ;  and  we  have  in  the  Acts 
the  continuance  of  that  work  through  the  apostles  and 
through  the  church.  It  will  interest  you  to  look 
through  the  Acts  and  to  mark  the  passages — a  great 
number  of  them — in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  is  men- 
tioned, and  in  which  the  work  and  the  power  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  are  set  forth.  You  know  that  the  first 
great  event  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  the  pouring- 
out  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  We  have  the  ascension  of 
Christ  narrated,  apparently  in  connection  with  the 
promise  that  the  Holy  Spirit  should  be  bestowed. 
Christ's  going  was  not,  as  John  says,  to  leave  the 
disciples  orphans,  but  only  to  prepare  his  coming  again 
in  a  new  form.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  the  all-present 
Christ.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  Christ  present  more  uni- 
versally than  he  could  possibly  be  if  he  were  here  in 
this  world  in  visible  form;  so  that  in  the  Holy  Spirit 
we  have  Christ  present  with  his  people,  scattered 
though  they  may  be  over  all  the  earth,  present  at  the 
same  moment  to  every  Christian  soul. 

The  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  then,  is  the  first  great 
event  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles ;  and  now,  after  that 
descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  we  have  the  continual  mani- 
festation of  the  Spirit's  presence  and  power;  we  have 
miracles  performed  in  the  name  of  Jesus;  we  have 
the  sending  out  of  the  apostles  and  deacons,  chosen 
through  the  Holy  Spirit;  we  have  the  condemnation  of 


THE   ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES  1 55 

Ananias  and  Sapphira,  who  lied  to  the  Holy  Spirit; 
and  then  we  have  the  final  missionary  work  of  Paul 
and  Barnabas,  with  all  the  evidences  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  gave  of  his  presence  and  power.  In  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles  we  have  the  presence  and  power  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  continually  set  forth;  the  words  Holy 
Spirit  are  continually  recurring,  as  they  do  not  recur 
in  the  Gospels.  The  first  great  object  of  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  is  therefore  to  set  forth  Christ's  work  in 
the  world  through  his  church;  the  building  up  of  his 
church  through  the  agency  of  the  apostles;  and  yet 
not  this  agency  as  something  separate  from  him,  but 
rather  as  the  agency  which  he  himself  uses,  to  show 
his  personal  power  in  setting  up  his  kingdom  in  the 
world;  in  other  words,  the  first  great  object  of  the 
Acts  is  to  show  forth  the  setting  up  of  Christ's  kingdom 
in  the  world  by  the  living,  personal  agency  of  Christ 
himself  through  his  Holy  Spirit. 

Now,  there  is  another  object  which  the  Acts  has  in 
view,  and  that  is  the  setting  forth  of  the  universal 
character  of  the  religion  of  Jesus.  At  this  distance 
of  time  we  have  almost  no  conception  of  that  revolu- 
tion in  human  thought  which  took  place  when  Judaism 
was  outgrown  and  Christianity  was  extended  to  the 
Gentile  world.  We  have  no  conception  of  the  narrow- 
ness and  prejudice  of  even  those  apostles  to  whom 
Christ  first  preached  his  gospel.  The  idea  that  one 
could  ever  be  saved,  except  by  becoming  a  Jew,  was 
something  entirely  foreign  to  their  thoughts.  Their 
only  idea  of  salvation  was  that  of  coming  within  the 
pale  of  Judaism,  submitting  to  the  Jewish  ritual  and 
organization,  and  thus  becoming  heir  to  the  promises 


156  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

given  to  Abraham  and  the  fathers.  The  idea  that  the 
gospel  was  for  all  the  world,  and  that  any  human  soul 
could  come  directly  to  God  through  Jesus  Christ,  with- 
out being  circumcised  and  becoming  a  Jew,  was  some- 
thing so  strange  and  wonderful  that  it  required  a  per- 
fect earthquake  to  shake  the  idea  into  the  apostles' 
minds. 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  in  great  part  given  us 
to  show  the  process  of  transition  by  which  the  gospel 
passed  from  the  Jew  to  the  Gentile,  by  which  the  Gen- 
tile came  to  hold  equal  rights  in  the  kingdom  of  God, 
and  to  be  regarded  as  equally  an  object  of  divine  favor 
and  blessing.  The  tendency  among  the  Jews  was  just 
as  it  is  among  Christians  to-day,  to  think  that  they 
were  the  special  favorites  of  heaven,  and  that  God  had 
chosen  them  and  brought  them  into  his  kingdom  for 
their  own  sakes.  It  was  the  object  of  Christ  Jesus, 
so  soon  as  he  had  ascended  his  throne,  to  dispel  this 
selfishness,  to  convince  his  church  that  the  gospel  was 
for  the  world.  So  you  find  that  there  is  a  passing  from 
Peter  to  Paul. 

Paul,  you  know,  on  his  last  journey  goes  back  to 
Jerusalem  and  preaches  the  gospel  there.  He  does 
everything  he  can  to  conciliate  the  Jewish  Christians ; 
in  fact,  he  comes  under  very  favorable  circumstances  on 
account  of  the  multitude  of  his  converts  among  the 
Gentiles;  but  you  know  what  difficulties  he  met  with. 
The  result  of  that  embassy  was  that  he  was  actually 
driven  out  from  Jerusalem,  and  was  compelled  finally 
and  forever  to  make  his  way  to  the  Gentiles  and  to 
confine  his  labors  to  them. 

There   is   a  transition    from   Jerusalem   to   Rome. 


THE   ACTS    OF    THE   APOSTLES  1 57 

After  the  twelfth  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
you  read  almost  nothing  in  regard  to  Jerusalem.  The 
scene  of  the  apostle's  labor  is  changed.  It  is  now  more 
important  that  the  gospel  should  be  preached  through 
the  world ;  and  you  have  a  gradual  progress  from  Jeru- 
salem and  Judea,  to  Samaria,  to  Antioch,  and  finally 
to  Rome.  Home  missions,  we  may  say,  led  to  foreign 
missions. 

We  have  the  passage  from  Peter  to  Paul,  we  have 
the  passage  from  Jerusalem  to  Rome,  we  have  the 
passage  from  Jews  to  Gentiles,  we  have  the  passage 
from  local  to  universal ;  and  as  this  passage  is  made  we 
have  speeches  and  utterances  on  the  part  of  Peter  and 
on  the  part  of  Paul  which  give  us  typical  illustrations 
of  their  way  of  presenting  the  great  truth  to  those 
whom  they  address. 

If  you  take,  for  example,  Paul's  utterances  to  the 
heathen,  there  is  one  comparatively  long  speech  at 
Athens.  Then  you  have  a  comparatively  long  speech 
to  the  Jews  of  Pisidia,  and  then  you  have  another  com- 
paratively long  speech  to  the  Jew^s  at  Rome. 

So  you  have  a  marvelous  system  of  selection  that 
takes  out  the  important  things  and  sets  them  before 
us,  with  the  one  idea  of  showing  how  the  gospel  that 
once  was  thought  by  the  Jews  to  belong  to  themselves 
alone  is  to  be  preached  as  the  means  of  salvation  to 
every  human  being,  both  Jew  and  Gentile. 

In  this  process  we  have  a  beautiful  incentive  to  broad 
and  universal  work  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  Just  so 
surely  as  'we  are  shut  up  in  ourselves,  and  fancy  that 
we  are  brought  into  the  kingdom  of  Christ  simply  for 
our  own   sake,   just  so   surely  the  blessings   of  the 


158  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

kingdom  will  be  taken  from  us  and  will  be  bestowed 
upon  others.  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  breathes  the 
most  liberal  spirit,  and  urges  us  to  no  selfish  concep- 
tion of  the  kingdom  of  God,  but  to  efforts  to  extend 
his  gospel  to  earth's  remotest  bound. 

Let  me  go  back  to  the  thought  with  which  I  began. 
The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  narrates  to  us  the  beginning 
of  the  work  of  Christ  in  the  church  and  in  the  world, 
the  work  of  Christ  since  his  ascension.  It  lays  down 
the  principle  of  that  work.  It  teaches  us  of  the  resur- 
rection, which  was  the  main  subject  of  preaching.  It 
tells  us  something  of  the  power  in  which  that  historical 
fact  was  to  be  proclaimed,  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  It  teaches  something  of  the  greatness  and 
power  which  is  possible  to  Christ's  servants,  and  it 
teaches  that  we  are  to  leave  all  personal  considerations 
and  devote  ourselves  to  the  great  work  of  subduing 
the  world.  But  in  all  this  it  gives  us  only  the  begin- 
ning. It  tells  us  only  what  Christ  began  to  do  and  to 
teach  while  here  in  the  flesh,  with  the  view  of  spread- 
ing his  gospel  from  Jerusalem  and  Judea  and  Samaria 
to  Antioch  and  Ephesus  and  Athens  and  Corinth  and 
Rome,  and  to  the  ends  of  the  earth. 

Now  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is,  so  to  speak,  first 
of  all,  his  new  work  in  the  foundation  of  the  church 
through  the  preaching  of  the  gospel ;  and  we  have  in  it 
a  clue  to  the  method  of  Christ's  labor,  and  his  prom- 
ise that  success  shall  attend  that  labor  as  it  goes  on 
through  all  the  ages,  until  his  purpose  is  accomplished 
and  the  whole  world  shall  be  brought  back  to  God. 

At  the  end  of  the  first  chapter  of  John's  Gospel 
there  is  a  text  which  I  think  we  might  well  apply  here. 


THE    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES  1 59 

Jesus  says,  "  Nathanael,  because  I  said  I  saw  thee  under 
the  fig  tree,  believest  thou?  Greater  things  than  these 
shalt  thou  see."  Then  he  goes  on  to  speak  of  the 
heavens  opening  and  the  angels  of  God  ascending  and 
descending  upon  the  Son  of  man,  intimating  that  he 
was  to  be  the  medium  of  communication  between  earth 
and  heaven,  the  channel  through  which  all  God's  bless- 
ings were  to  flow  to  the  world.  "  Greater  things  than 
these  shall  ye  see,"  says  Christ.  As  he  utters  those 
words  to  Nathanael  he  utters  those  words  to  us.  We 
have  seen  great  things  since  the  time  when  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles  was  written.  The  gospel  has  been 
preached  in  almost  every  heathen  land  of  the  habitable 
world,  and  thousands  have  been  converted ;  still  Christ 
can  say  to  us,  "  Greater  things  than  these  shall  ye  see  " ; 
and  there  never  will  be  a  time,  even  after  all  his  won- 
derful revelations  of  the  divine  nature,  after  all  the 
wonderful  triumphs  of  his  kingdom,  when  he  wnll  not 
be  able  to  turn  to  the  sacramental  host  that  follows  him 
and  say,  "  Greater  things  than  these  shall  ye  see."  The 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  like  the  gospel  itself,  is  only  the 
beginning  of  the  more  wonderful  future  that  is  before 
us.  Let  us  thank  God  and  take  courage,  for  "  mercy 
shall  be  built  up  forever." 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS 

There  is  no  writing  of  the  New  Testament  that  more 
needs  to  be  studied  in  connection  with  the  history  of 
the  writer  than  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  The 
apostle  Paul  was  born  about  the  year  7  or  8  of  our  era, 
in  Tarsus,  the  capital  of  Cilicia,  in  Asia  Minor.  Cilicia 
was  populated  with  Greeks,  and  Tarsus  was  no  mean 
city.  It  was  a  place  of  great  literary  and  philosophical 
activity.    It  almost  ranked  with  Athens  and  Alexandria. 

The  schools  of  Tarsus  were  famed  throughout  the 
world,  and  Paul  received  in  his  early  days  the  best 
education  in  Greek  literature  and  in  Greek  philosophy. 
He  refers  three  several  times  to  Greek  poets,  and  there 
are  other  indications  that  he  was  familiar  with  Greek 
poetical  literature.  In  his  controversy  with  the  Stoics 
and  Epicureans,  he  shows  a  very  correct  and  distinct 
knowledge  of  their  doctrine. 

Paul,  although  he  was  born  at  Tarsus,  was  a  Roman 
citizen,  and  a  Roman  citizen  at  the  time  when  to  be  a 
Roman  was  almost  greater  than  to  be  a  king.  He  was  a 
Roman  citizen  not  because  all  the  inhabitants  of  Tarsus 
had  had  Roman  citizenship  conferred  upon  them.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  Roman  citizenship  was  conferred  upon 
all  the  inhabitants  of  Tarsus  at  a  later  time;  but  at 
this  time  Paul  was  free-born,  because  his  father  was 
already  a  Roman  citizen.  The  father  may  have  ren- 
dered some  special  service  to  the  state  and  so  may  have 
had  Roman  citizenship  conferred  upon  him. 
160 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   ROMANS  l6l 

There  is  no  question  but  that  this  conferring  of 
Roman  citizenship  must  have  given  to  the  family  of 
the  apostle  Paul  a  high  social  position;  and  it  is  quite 
evident  in  all  the  bearing  of  the  apostle,  both  in  the 
Acts  and  in  his  Epistles,  that  there  was  with  him  that 
abiding  sense  of  dignity  which  belongs  to  one  who, 
from  his  earliest  years,  has  been  accustomed  to  regard 
himself  as  among  the  best  of  his  fellow  citizens.  There 
was  a  rank  and  honor  which  belonged  to  those  who  had 
this  dignity  of  Roman  citizenship,  and  at  that  distance 
from  Jerusalem  there  was  an  enjoyment  of  some  privi- 
leges and  a  broadening  of  the  mind  which  would  not 
have  been  possible  if  Paul  had  been  born  at  Jerusalem, 
even  though  he  had  been  there  a  Latin  and  a  Roman. 

But  it  is  not  enough  to  speak  of  Paul  as  a  Roman 
citizen.  More  than  by  his  Roman  citizenship  was  he 
characterized  by  the  fact  that  he  was  a  Jew.  He  was 
a  Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews.  He  was  a  Pharisee,  and 
the  son  of  a  Pharisee.  He  was  of  the  tribe  of  Ben- 
jamin, of  the  straitest  sect  of  the  Jewish  religion ;  and, 
therefore,  in  his  twelfth  year,  he  appears  to  have  been 
sent  to  Jerusalem  for  his  education. 

Having  what  could  be  gotten  at  Tarsus,  and  per- 
haps returning  to  Tarsus  afterward  for  certain  por- 
tions of  his  study,  it  would  appear  that  from  the  age 
of  twelve  years  a  very  large  portion  of  his  time  was 
spent  at  Jerusalem.  At  Jerusalem  the  very  highest 
advantages  that  the  Jewish  religion  could  afford  were 
his,  for  he  sat  at  the  feet  of  Gamaliel,  the  greatest 
Jewish  teacher  of  his  time,  and  not  only  a  great  Jewish 
teacher,  but  a  great  man  as  well,  as  appears  from  the 
fragments  of  his  teaching  that  are  left  to  us. 

L 


l62  THE    BOOKS   OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

He  sat  at  the  feet  of  Gamaliel;  and  at  the  feet  of 
Gamaliel  he  seems  to  have  made  wonderful  progress 
in  the  development  of  his  ardent  and  enthusiastic  re- 
ligious spirit;  for  he  states  that  he  made  progress  in 
Judaism  beyond  all  those  of  his  own  age,  and  was 
looked  upon  as  the  most  promising  of  the  rising  young 
men  among  the  Jews. 

There  is  no  doubt  whatever  that  Paul  was  a  man 
of  ambition.  His  ambition  was  of  a  very  lofty  sort. 
There  is  not  the  slightest  evidence  that  there  was  ever 
a  spot  or  stain  upon  his  moral  character.  His  ambition 
was  to  attain  the  highest  legal  and  moral  standing; 
there  was  a  constant  effort  at  the  doing  of  works  of 
righteousness;  he  sought  to  gain  the  applause  of  his 
own  conscience,  and  whatever  earthly  influence  and 
power  might  accrue  as  the  result  of  a  noble  and  un- 
blemished moral  development. 

There  was  in  the  character  of  the  apostle  Paul  a 
remarkable  union  of  energy  and  quickness  of  mind. 
He  had  not  only  acuteness  of  intellect,  but  with  it 
firmness  of  will.  He  was  not  only  a  thoroughly  blame- 
less man  in  moral  character,  but  a  person  possessed 
of  an  ardent  and  impetuous  nature.  He  was  a  man 
of  the  warmest  and  deepest  affection;  and  this  union 
of  intellectual  power  and  emotional  power  is  perceptible 
in  every  writing  and  in  every  speech  which  is  left  to  us. 

The  apostle  Paul  was  a  great  man  by  nature  and  a 
great  man  by  training.  He  was  a  great  man  because 
in  his  mental  composition  there  was  not  simply  the  in- 
tellectual element,  but  there  was  also  the  emotional  ele- 
ment. He  was  greater  than  Peter,  because  he  had  a 
greater  intellect   than   Peter   ever   had.      He   was   a 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    ROMANS  163 

greater  man  than  John,  because  he  had  greater  strength 
and  energy  of  will  than  ever  John  possessed.  And  so 
by  his  character  and  natural  composition  of  mind  and 
heart,  as  well  as  by  his  birth  and  education,  he  was 
fitted  for  the  special  work  which  God  had  ordained  for 
him,  to  be  a  bridge  between  the  Jews  and  the  Gentiles, 
fitted  for  the  work  of  extending  the  Jewish  religion, 
of  freeing  it  from  its  husks,  and  making  it  the  universal 
religion  of  the  w^orld.  The  apostle  Paul  was  wonder- 
fully fitted  by  natural  temperament  and  by  education 
for  the  peculiar  W'Ork  that  God  gave  him  to  do;  and 
yet,  even  though  he  united  Roman  citizenship  with 
Greek  culture  and  Jewish  legalism,  he  never  could  have 
done  the  work  that  he  did;  he  would  at  most  have 
been  famous  as  a  liberal  rabbi  among  the  Jews;  his 
fame  would  have  been  a  narrow  and  local  fame,  if  it 
had  not  been  for  that  wonderful  change  that  came  over 
him  on  his  way  to  Damascus,  that  wonderful  change 
which  turned  the  ardent  and  enthusiastic  Jew  into  the 
greatest  preacher  of  the  gospel  that  this  w^orld  has 
ever  seen. 

It  would  seem  that  at  his  thirtieth  year  Paul  entered 
public  life.  It  was  at  that  time,  apparently,  that,  in 
response  to  an  inward  impulse  to  do  more  than  he 
had  ever  done  hitherto,  he  undertook  the  persecution 
of  the  Christians.  This  impulse  to  do  more  than  he  had 
ever  done,  this  longing  to  work  out  a  righteousness 
of  his  own  which  should  commend  him  to  God,  w^as 
parallel  to  that  impulse  that  possessed  the  mind  of 
Luther  during  so  many  years;  and  it  would  seem 
almost  as  if  this  impulse,  this  sense  of  dissatisfaction 
with  himself,  this  desire  to  do  something  more  than 


164  THE    BOOItS   OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

he  had  ever  done  before,  led  him  to  seek  an  enterprise 
that  had  in  it  hazard  and  also  something  of  faith;  a 
perverted  faith.  In  other  words,  he  would  prove  that 
he  was  a  Jew  beyond  all  other  Jews  by  his  determined 
opposition  to  everything  in  the  way  of  heresy,  the  new 
religion;  and  so  he  sought  from  the  high  priest  the 
letters  to  Damascus,  in  which  he  was  authorized  to 
apprehend  Christians  and  to  bring  them  by  force  to 
the  holy  city  for  trial  and  punishment.  But  before  that 
mission  was  executed  an  event  took  place  which  un- 
questionably had  permanent  influence  upon  the  apostle's 
mind,  and  that  was  the  martyrdom  of  Stephen. 

Although  Paul  does  not  appear  to  have  been  an 
active  participant  in  that  martyrdom,  as  he  only  held 
the  clothes  of  those  who  were  stoning  Stephen  to 
death,  yet  there  was  something  on  the  appealing  face 
of  that  martyr  as  he  looked  up  to  heaven,  something  in 
that  cry  of  Stephen,  ''  Lord,  receive  my  spirit,"  some- 
thing in  the  calm  with  which  the  man  who  was  just 
on  the  verge  of  death  rejoiced  in  the  presence  of  Christ 
and  in  the  assurance  that  his  spirit  was  going  to  be 
with  him  in  glory;  there  was  something  in  that  scene 
which  stirred  the  apostle's  mind  after  Stephen's  death, 
although  he  was  not  an  apostle  then,  and  which  appar- 
ently— all  the  way  on  that  journey  to  Damascus — was 
agitating  his  soul  with  the  feeling  that  all  was  not 
right  within,  and  was  preparing  the  way  for  the  mani- 
festation of  Christ's  power  to  him  in  that  supernatural 
light  from  heaven. 

As  he  was  nearing  Damascus  he  was  stricken  down 
by  a  light  that  was  brighter  than  the  light  of  the  sun ; 
he  heard  a  voice  saying  to  him,  ^^  Saul,  Saul,  why 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    ROMANS  165 

persecutest  thou  me  ? "  and  he  cried,  "  Who  art  thou, 
Lord  ?  "  The  answer  was,  *'  I  am  Jesus  whom  thou 
persecutest;  it  is  hard  for  thee  to  kick  against  the 
pricks,"  hard  for  thee  to  resist  this  inner  stirring  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  hard  for  thee  to  go  on  in  this  everlasting 
struggle  of  will  against  conscience.  So  a  wonderful 
change  took  place.  He  bowed  himself  to  this  Christ, 
whose  followers  he  had  been  persecuting;  and  the 
evidence  of  his  submission  was  these  words :  ''  Lord, 
what  wilt  thou  have  me  to  do  ?  I  hear  thy  voice,  from 
this  instant  I  give  myself  to  thee  " ;  and  the  answer 
was  that  he  was  to  go  into  the  city,  and  it  should  be 
told  him  what  he  should  do.  There  have  been  mani- 
fold attempts  to  explain  this  transaction  upon  natural- 
istic grounds.  The  two  chief  explanations  that  have 
been  given  are  the  explanations  of  Baur  and  Renan. 

Baur  would  explain  the  outward  from  the  inward, 
and  he  says  that  it  was  simply  an  intense  and  sudden 
conviction  of  the  truth  of  Christian  religion  and  of 
Christ's  spiritual  presence,  that  Paul  translated  into 
an  outward  scene  and  an  outward  event.  The  whole 
transaction  was  within.  Unfortunately,  we  cannot 
translate  the  inward  into  the  outward  here,  because 
this  experience  was  not  peculiar  to  the  apostle  alone. 
His  companions  with  him  heard  the  sound,  heard  the 
voice,  though  they  could  not  understand  the  words. 
And  Baur  himself,  at  a  later  period  in  his  life,  was 
obliged  to  confess  that  the  conversion  of  the  apostle 
Paul  and  the  effects  that  followed  from  it  constitute 
an  inexplicable  psychological  enigma,  which  is  simply 
an  acknowledgment  that  he  has  no  answer  or  explana- 
tion to  give. 


l66  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Renan,  on  the  other  hand,  would  explain  the  inward 
from  the  outward,  and  he  tells  us  that  there  was  a 
sudden  storm,  that  there  was  a  flash  of  lightning,  or 
that  there  was  a  sudden  access  of  ophthalmic  fever, 
which  Paul  took  as  a  scene  from  heaven.  Unfortu- 
nately for  this  explanation,  it  is  utterly  impossible  for 
any  mere  outward  event  or  scene,  any  mere  outward 
transaction  of  that  sort  to  explain  the  inward  effects 
that  followed.  No  ordinary  sickness,  no  ophthalmic 
fever,  no  flash  of  lightning,  no  storm,  would  ever  of 
itself  be  sufficient  to  change  the  persecutor  of  the 
Christian  church  into  the  greatest  advocate  of  Christian 
religion  that  the  world  has  seen ;  and  the  apostle  Paul 
gives  us  very  distinctly  to  understand  that  he  knew 
the  difference  between  inward  and  outward  experi- 
ences. He  was  not  the  man  to  translate  inward  ex- 
periences into  outward  ones,  nor  outward  into  inward 
ones ;  because,  on  another  occasion,  when  there  was  a 
very  peculiar  experience  and  he  was  caught  up  into 
the  third  heaven,  he  tells  us,  "  Whether  I  was  in  the 
body  or  out  of  the  body  I  know  not."  That  transac- 
tion was  one  which  he  could  not  explain,  but  his  ex- 
perience on  the  way  to  Damascus  was  very  different. 
Then  he  saw  the  living,  risen  Christ  in  bodily  form,  for 
he  tells  us  afterward  that,  last  of  all  Christ's  appear- 
ances to  his  disciples  after  his  resurrection,  the  Lord 
was  seen  of  him  also,  and  that  constituted  his  authority 
in  his  apostleship. 

It  was  necessary,  in  order  to  be  an  apostle,  that  one 
should  have  seen  the  risen  Christ,  and  so  should  be  a 
credible  witness  of  his  resurrection.  All  the  apostles 
had  seen  Jesus  Christ  in  bodily  formx  after  he  had  risen 


THE   EPISTLE    TO    THE    ROMANS  167 

from  the  dead.  Nothing  but  the  seeing  of  the  living, 
risen  Christ  would  ever  have  enabled  such  a  mono- 
theist  as  Paul  to  talk  about  Christ  as  being  the  fulness 
of  the  Godhead,  bodily.  Paul  knew  the  difference 
between  a  vision  and  an  outward,  bodily  manifestation 
of  Christ;  and  he  has  maintained  the  distinction  be- 
tween those  two  with  perfect  accuracy  and  uniformity 
throughout  all  his  writings. 

This  outward  manifestation  had  a  wonderful  effect 
upon  Paul.  The  inward  experience,  the  revelation  of 
his  sin  was  only  the  accompaniment  of  Christ's  out- 
ward revelation  of  himself  to  Paul.  In  the  first  place, 
this  visible  manifestation  of  the  heavenly  purity,  that 
was  ineffably  glorious  beyond  the  brightness  of  the 
sun,  was  the  death-blow  to  all  Paul's  hope  of  legal 
righteousness.  The  instant  he  saw  this  Christ  in  his 
divinely  holy  manifestation  he  was  like  Isaiah  of  old, 
who,  in  the  presence  of  the  holiness  of  Christ,  as  we 
are  told  in  John  12  :  41,  put  himself  in  the  position  of 
the  leper  and  cried,  "  Unclean,  unclean ! "  and  in  the 
position  of  Peter,  who,  when  the  power  of  Jesus  was 
manifested  to  him,  cried :  "  Depart  from  me,  O  Lord, 
for  I  am  a  sinful  man !  " 

From  that  moment  all  idea  of  ever  commending 
himself  to  the  holy  God  by  any  works  of  righteous- 
ness that  he  had  done  or  could  do  was  dispelled  for- 
ever; and  in  the  place  of  hope  that  he  could  do  any- 
thing or  claim  anything  good  in  his  imperfection  and 
in  his  sin,  there  arose  in  his  mind  a  new  conception  of 
the  sacrifice  for  sin.  Those  old  Jewish  types  in  which 
he  had  been  educated  assumed  an  entirely  new  signifi- 
cance; this  Jesus,  whom  he  had  been  persecuting  as  a 


l68  THE    BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

false  teacher,  was  the  Messiah,  was  the  Christ,  was  the 
divinely  appointed  sacrifice  for  sin,  was  God  himself 
coming  in  human  form  and  offering  sacrifices  for  sin, 
to  exhibit  his  justice  and  make  possible  the  salvation 
of  the  lost. 

Paul  sees  the  sin,  Paul  sees  the  sacrifice  for  sin,  and 
then  Paul  sees  who  this  is  that  has  offered  this  sac- 
rifice :  it  is  none  other  than  the  Son  of  God,  the 
Saviour  of  the  world,  God  manifest  in  the  flesh.  In 
connection  with  this  there  arises  in  his  mind  the  idea 
of  the  universality  of  the  salvation.  If  God  has  offered 
this  sacrifice,  if  this  Christ  is  the  God  offered  upon  the 
altar  of  sacrifice  for  human  sin,  then  the  validity  of 
this  sacrifice  must  be  universal,  not  simply  to  the  Jews, 
but  to  all  the  nations  of  mankind. 

So  from  this  point  must  be  dated  not  only  Paul's  con- 
version, but  also  Paul's  calling  to  his  apostleship  and 
to  his  work  in  the  world,  and  to  his  understanding  of 
the  nature  and  meaning  of  that  work.  He  comes,  lit- 
tle by  little,  to  see  that  God  has  called  him  to  be  an 
apostle  to  the  heathen  world,  and  he  devotes  himself 
to  missionary  labors.  A  man  not  strong  in  his  phy- 
sique, and  with  a  malady  upon  him  which  requires  the 
constant  attendance  of  the  physician  Luke,  he,  not- 
withstanding, with  a  perfectly  indefatigable  zeal,  with 
an  absoluteness  of  devotion  such  as  the  world  never  saw 
before  or  since,  devotes  himself  to  the  evangelization 
of  the  world. 

He  goes  out  in  successive  missionary  journeys  in 
wider  and  wider  circles.  First,  a  narrow  circle  through 
Asia  Minor,  then  a  wider  circle  through  Asia  Minor, 
and   finally   another   one    through    Asia    Minor    into 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    ROMANS  169 

Greece.  From  Corinth  he  looks  out  wistfully  toward 
Rome,  the  center  and  metropolis  of  the  world ;  and  he 
longs  there,  among  the  masters  of  the  world,  to  preach 
this  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ. 

There  is  something  magnificent  in  this  life  of  the 
apostle!  I  do  not  wonder  that  Doctor  Peabody,  of 
Harvard  College,  when  he  attended,  not  long  ago,  the 
centennial  celebration  of  the  birth  of  Adoniram  Judson, 
in  Maiden,  Massachusetts,  said  in  the  pulpit  that 
Doctor  Judson,  in  his  judgment,  was  the  greatest  man 
that  had  appeared  on  this  earth  since  the  days  of  the 
apostle  Paul. 

I  wonder  that  it  did  not  occur  to  Doctor  Peabody, 
with  his  unwillingness  to  grant  the  absolute  deity  of 
Jesus  Christ,  I  wonder  that  it  did  not  occur  to  him 
that  Unitarianism  has  never  produced  such  a  man  as 
Judson,  or  such  a  man  as  Paul,  and  that  the  spirit  of 
Unitarianism  is  a  different  spirit  from  the  spirit  of 
either  Judson  or  Paul. 

There  was  a  doctrine  to  preach,  now  that  Paul  had 
found  Christ.  There  was  a  doctrine  to  preach,  now 
that  Paul  had  come  to  recognize  Jesus  as  the  living 
God,  and  it  was  a  doctrine  for  which  he  could  sacri- 
fice life  itself  when,  at  last,  he  went  to  his  martyrdom 
at  Rome. 

I  cannot  tell  the  other  steps  of  his  life-story,  and 
it  is  not  necessary  for  my  purpose;  but  how  perfectly 
plain  it  is  that  when  Paul  comes  to  write  his  Epistles, 
all  his  natural  character  and  all  his  Christian  experience 
are  wrought  into  them.  These  Epistles  are  Epistles 
of  fellowship,  you  might  say.  The  apostle  does  not 
stand  upon  a  lofty  elevation  and  talk  down  to  those 


170  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

whom  he  is  addressing,  but  puts  himself,  so  to  speak, 
upon  their  level.    They  are  letters  of  friendship. 

I  wish  the  word  ''  letters  "  could  be  substituted  for 
the  word  ''  Epistles,"  as  applied  to  Paul's  communica- 
tions to  the  churches ;  for  they  are  letters  of  Christian 
fellowship ;  and  underneath  and  through  them  all  there 
is  the  life  of  the  apostle,  so  to  speak,  and  the  assur- 
ance that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  with  him  in  his  speaking. 
There  is  constantly  present  and  constantly  manifest 
the  throbbing  of  a  warm  and  sincere  heart,  as  well  as 
the  working  of  an  energetic  and  organizing  intellect. 

It  is  necessary  to  say  a  word  with  regard  to  the 
church  at  Rome,  to  which  this  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
was  addressed.  Rome,  of  course,  was  the  greatest 
city  and  the  greatest  center  of  power  in  the  world; 
and  Paul,  as  he  looked  off  toward  the  West  and  knew 
that  from  that  city  the  greatest  influences  must  ema- 
nate in  future  time,  for  the  welfare  of  the  nations  to 
which  he  was  called  to  minister,  had  longed  for  years 
that  he  might  preach  the  gospel  there  also.  But  church 
after  church  was  laid  upon  him,  constituting  a  new 
burden  of  anxiety  and  care;  and  the  personal  rela- 
tions between  himself  and  those  converted  under  his 
ministry  were  kept  up  year  after  year,  so  that  he  could 
speak  of  the  burden  of  all  the  churches  as  one  of  the 
heavy  things  laid  upon  him  by  God.  And  yet  his  heart 
goes  out  beyond  the  churches  to  which  he  has  per- 
sonally ministered;  and  since  he  cannot  instruct  the 
Romans  in  their  great  center  of  influence  and  power 
by  personal  work  and  words,  he  feels  it  a  duty  to  give 
them  the  gospel  by  written  instruction,  and  so  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  written. 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    ROMANS  I7I 

Paul,  of  course,  was  not  the  founder  of  the  Roman 
church.  Some  have  said  that  it  was  founded  by  those 
Jews  and  proselytes  of  Rome  who  were  present  at 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  who  went  back,  bringing  the 
glad  news  to  their  fellow  countrymen ;  but  with  regard 
to  that  there  may  be  considerable  doubt.  It  seems 
very  likely  to  me  that  the  church  at  Rome  was  founded 
by  Gentile  converts  that  had  made  their  way  there  from 
Asia  Minor,  just  as,  at  an  earlier  time,  they  had  made 
their  way  to  Antioch  and  afterward  to  Alexandria. 

The  tradition  that  Peter  was  the  founder  of  the 
church  at  Rome  is  decisively  negatived  by  this  very 
Epistle  of  Paul.  This  Epistle  of  Paul  cuts  absolutely 
at  the  root  of  the  historical  basis  of  the  papacy,  be- 
cause it  is  perfectly  evident  in  this  Epistle  that  Paul 
knows  nothing  of  any  previous  work  of  Peter  there. 
In  all  the  salutations  there  is  no  allusion  to  Peter ;  and 
if  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  had  been  written  to  a 
church  of  which  such  a  person  as  the  apostle  Peter 
had  been  the  founder,  we  may  be  sure  there  would  have 
been  an  allusion  to  Peter's  work  and  teaching.  Letters 
of  apostolic  instruction  to  churches  founded  by  other 
apostles  were  not  according  to  Paul's  rule.  He  never 
built  upon  another  man's  foundation.  It  was  always 
new  work  that  he  did. 

There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  Peter  had  ever 
seen  Rome  when  this  Epistle  to  the  Romans  was 
written,  and  therefore  no  reason  to  believe  that  the 
apostle  Peter  was  ever  a  founder  of  the  Roman  church. 
Peter,  if  he  ever  did  visit  Rome,  visited  it  after  this 
time.  It  is  just  possible  that  after  this  time  he  may 
have  visited  it,  and  that  he  may  have  founded  a  church 


172  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

there;  and  the  fact  that  the  succession  of  Roman 
bishops  presents  a  double  Hst  at  the  very  beginning 
may  possibly  be  explained  in  this  way :  that  there  were 
two  churches  in  Rome,  and  that  the  bishops  of  the  one 
were  bishops  or  pastors  of  the  church  to  which  Paul 
wrote,  and  the  others  were  pastors  of  the  church  in 
whose  foundation  Peter  was  concerned.  But  even  with 
regard  to  this  there  is  no  certainty  at  all.  It  is  by  no 
means  certain  that  the  apostle  Peter  ever  visited  Rome 
at  all. 

We  do  know,  however,  with  regard  to  this  church 
at  Rome  to  which  the  apostle  Paul  wrote,  that  it  was 
a  church  prevailingly  of  Gentile  Christians,  persons 
that  were  brought  in  from  among  the  Gentiles  and 
not  from  among  the  Jews.  And  yet  they  had  with 
them,  doubtless,  many  who  were  converts  from  among 
the  Jews  also.  While  the  letter  shows  that  the  ma- 
jority of  believers  among  them  were  Gentile  Christians, 
yet  at  the  same  time  we  cannot  deny  that  there  were 
also  among  them  converts  from  among  the  Jews,  and 
it  was  from  the  fact  that  there  were  those  two  classes 
in  the  church  that  one  of  the  particular  necessities  of 
writing  the  Epistle  arose.  There  were  diversities  of 
opinion  between  these  two  classes,  and  one  of  the 
objects  of  Paul's  writing  was  to  reconcile  these  two, 
bring  about  a  compromise,  induce  a  spirit  of  material 
consideration  and  helpfulness  between  them;  and  the 
fifteenth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  written 
expressly  with  this  aim. 

The  letter  itself  was  probably  written  from  Corinth, 
in  the  year  56,  as  Paul  was  on  his  third  missionary 
journey,  and  was  just  preparing  to  go  to  Jerusalem; 


THE   EHSTLE    TO    THE    ROMANS  I73 

and,  therefore,  before  his  imprisonment  at  Csesarea  and 
during  those  three  months  of  comparative  leisure  and 
rest  when  Paul  was  at  Corinth,  when  he  had  succeeded 
in  reducing  the  difficulties  and  troubles  of  the  Corin- 
thian church  and  had,  apparently,  a  period  of  rest  and 
relaxation  preparatory  to  the  great  trials  that  were 
just  before  him  in  his  imprisonment  at  Jerusalem,  his 
imprisonment  at  Csesarea,  and  his  trial  at  Rome. 

So  we  come  to  what  we  have  been  aiming  at  all  the 
time:  the  object  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  What 
was  the  object  of  this  Epistle?  I  have  indicated  that 
there  were  subsidiary  objects,  such  as  the  reconcilia- 
tion of  these  diverse  opinions  between  Jew  and  Gentile 
Christians.  Undoubtedly  there  were  such  subsidiary 
objects  as  this ;  and  still,  I  think,  when  you  look  at  the 
Epistle  as  a  whole,  you  cannot  doubt  that  Paul  seized 
upon  Rome  and  the  writing  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  as  a  means  of  setting  forth  in  more  philosoph- 
ical, more  organic,  and  more  complete  form  than  ever 
had  been  attained  heretofore,  the  gospel  which  he 
preached. 

The  facts  of  Christianity  were  at  this  time  pub- 
lished for  the  most  part  only  in  an  oral  gospel,  al- 
though our  Mark,  and  the  sayings  of  Jesus  which  Mat- 
thew incorporated,  were  already  written.  Paul  was 
not  so  much  concerned  about  putting  these  facts  into 
written  form,  although  a  little  later  it  would  seem  that 
he  had  some  influence  in  the  composition  of  Luke's 
Gospel  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  But  Paul  was 
not  a  witness  of  the  events  of  Jesus'  life,  and,  more- 
over, Paul  was  called  as  an  apostle  after  Jesus'  death, 
with  an  obvious  end  in  view.     It  was  not  without  a 


174  THE   BOOKS   OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT 

purpose  that  Paul  had  not  been  with  Jesus  Christ  all 
through  his  life.  He  could  see  the  life  of  our  Lord  as 
a  whole,  in  a  way  that  the  first  apostles  could  not. 

It  was  necessary  that  the  Gospels  should  be  written 
by  eye-witnesses  and  by  those  who  had  seen  the  eye- 
witnesses; but  it  was  also  necessary  that  a  beginning 
should  be  made  in  reducing  Christianity  to  a  system. 
In  this  organizing  of  Christian  facts  into  doctrine,  the 
writer  needed  to  be  conversant  with  the  results  rather 
than  with  the  events  themselves.  It  was  necessary, 
in  other  words,  that  Paul  should  have  his  peculiar 
mind  and  his  peculiar  religious  and  philosophical  train- 
ing in  order  to  write  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and 
the  Epistle  itself  is  therefore  a  semi-philosophical  ex- 
position of  the  Pauline  Gospel. 

We  have  here  the  summary  of  Christian  doctrine  as 
it  appeared  to  the  apostle  Paul.  Paul  was  perfectly 
capable  of  doing  this,  and  he  had  special  preparation 
for  it.  This  will  be  more  evident,  I  think,  when  you 
remember  that  in  Ephesus,  for  two  years,  every  single 
day  Paul  lectured  in  the  school  of  the  rhetorician 
Tyrannus.  Can  you  imagine  a  man  of  the  skill  of 
Paul  lecturing  for  two  whole  years,  every  single  day, 
without  having  any  plan  for  his  discourses  ?  You  may 
be  very  sure  that,  in  the  mind  of  the  apostle  as  he 
discussed  these  things,  there  was  an  order  and  a  sys- 
tem. When  he  came  to  write  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  all  this  was  ready  to  his  hand.  As  he  wrote, 
it  was  inevitable  that  his  material  should  be  molded 
by  his  individual  characteristics  and  training,  and  by 
the  special  purpose  he  had  in  preaching  and  lecturing 
about  the  gospel  of  Christ.     And  so  we  have  in  this 


THE   EPISTLE   TO    THE   ROMANS  I75 

Epistle  to  the  Romans  an  exposition  of  the  truth  of 
Christianity  as  it  was  preached  by  the  apostle  Paul. 

But  this  does  not  absolve  us  from  the  necessity  of 
showing  what  was  the  particular  end  and  aim  of  this 
Epistle.  Christianity  was  a  broad  thing.  It  took  all 
the  apostles  to  see  Christianity  and  see  Christ  aright. 
Christianity  and  Christ  were  many-sided,  and  not  one 
apostle,  but  all  the  apostles  together  were  needed  to 
see  them  in  their  various  aspects.  The  apostle  Paul 
represents  Christ  from  his  point  of  view,  and  that 
point  of  view  is  the  doctrine  of  faith  as  opposed  to  the 
doctrine  of  works.  The  subject  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  is  salvation  by  faith  in  distinction  from  salva- 
tion by  works. 

Right  here  there  is  an  important  remark  which  I 
wish  to  make,  and  which  may  correct  some  misappre- 
hension you  have  had  in  the  past.  It  is  often  said 
that  the  subject  of  this  Epistle  is  justification  by  faith. 
That  is  only  a  part  of  the  truth.  To  say  that  the  sub- 
ject of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  justification  by 
faith  is  to  narrow  our  conception  of  the  apostle  Paul 
and  his  ideas  of  Christianity. 

When  you  look  at  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  as  a 
whole,  you  find  that  although  the  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion by  faith  is  one  of  the  largest  parts  of  it,  it  is 
only  a  part.  The  subject  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
is  salvation  by  faith;  and  salvation  by  faith  consists 
of  two  things:  first,  justification  by  faith;  and,  sec- 
ondly, sanctification  by  faith.  First,  bringing  in  of 
the  ship  safe;  and  then,  secondly,  the  making  of  it 
sound.  It  is  one  thing  to  bring  the  ship  in  after  a 
tempest  and  moor  it  safely  to  the  dock — that  is  justifi- 


176  THE   BOOKS   OF   THE    KEW    TESTAMENT 

cation;  but  it  is  quite  another  thing  to  see  that  that 
ship  is  thoroughly  repaired — that  is  sanctification. 

Now  the  totahty  of  salvation  is  the  subject  of  the 
Epistle.  Justification  first,  the  securing  of  a  new  ac- 
cess to  God,  pardon,  the  remission  of  sin,  outward 
favor,  external  justification;  and  then  the  renewal  of 
the  heart,  the  increase  of  right  affections,  the  subduing 
of  the  whole  man  to  obedience  to  Christ,  and  filling 
him  with  peace  and  joy,  internal  sanctification. 

The  whole  man  is  included,  and  all  God  does  for 
man  is  in  view  when  the  apostle  writes.  So  you  find 
that  after  Paul  has  introduced  his  letter  with  an  apos- 
tolic introduction,  and  has  defined  his  subject  as  the 
righteousness  which  God  provides  by  faith,  he  goes  on, 
first,  to  speak  from  the  first  chapter  and  seventeenth 
verse  to  the  fifth  chapter  and  eleventh  verse,  inclusive, 
of  justification  by  faith;  and  then  from  the  fifth  chapter 
and  twelfth  verse  to  the  end  of  the  eighth  chapter,  of 
sanctification  by  faith.  If  this  is  all  by  faith,  how  can 
we  explain  God's  calling  of  the  Jews  in  times  past, 
God's  election,  and  their  rejection?  Two  explanatory 
chapters,  the  ninth  and  tenth,  are  added  to  make  that 
matter  clear,  and  to  show  that  the  Jews  have  been  cast 
off  because  of  their  own  wilful  unbelief,  and  that  the 
Gentiles  have  been  brought  in  in  the  fulness  of  God's 
mercy.  And  then,  after  this  salvation  by  faith  as  com- 
ing from  God  has  been  set  forth  in  its  two  parts  of 
justification  and  sanctification,  we  have  the  ethical 
portion  of  the  Epistle,  with  which  the  twelfth  chapter 
begins ;  that  wonderful  portion  which  tells  us  how  this 
gospel  will  manifest  itself  in  practical  life,  and  Chris- 
tian perfection  will  reveal  itself  to  the  world. 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    ROMANS  Ijy 

"  I  beseech  you,  therefore,  brethren,  by  the  mercies 
of  God,  that  ye  present  your  bodies  a  hving  sacrifice, 
holy  and  acceptable  unto  God,  which  is  your  reasonable 
service."  What  a  source  of  gratitude  that  this  doc- 
trine is  not  a  mere  abstraction,  not  a  matter  of  mere 
theory,  but  that  it  leads  to  a  holy  life !  What  that  life 
will  be  is  explained  from  the  beginning  of  the  twelfth 
chapter,  and  the  rest  of  the  Epistle  is  ethical  as  the 
first  eleven  chapters  have  been  doctrinal. 

Under  the  first  head  of  justification  by  faith  it  was 
necessary  for  the  apostle  to  show  that  such  a  thing 
was  needed,  because  no  one  could  ever  be  justified  in 
any  other  w^ay;  and  so,  from  the  eighteenth  verse  of 
the  first  chapter  to  the  twentieth  verse  of  the  third 
chapter,  he  shows  the  need  of  a  divinely  provided 
righteousness  by  proving  that  man  could  not  work  out 
any  such  righteousness  by  himself.  The  wrath  of  God 
rested  both  upon  Gentiles  and  upon  Jews. 

See  how  Paul  is  simply  reproducing  his  own  experi- 
ence, and  is  applying  to  all  men  just  that  truth  of 
which  he  had  been  deeply  conscious  in  his  own  soul; 
and  having  proved  this,  he  says  that  God  has  provided 
a  righteousness,  a  righteousness  in  Christ  who  is  made 
an  atonement  for  sin.  Then  you  have  the  way  in 
which  the  giving  of  this  gospel  to  man  absolutely  ex- 
cludes boasting  and  self-praise ;  and  the  proof  that,  even 
under  the  Old  Testament,  the  law  of  salvation  was 
precisely  the  same.  Abraham  was  saved  by  faith  just 
as  we  are.  He  cast  himself  upon  the  mercy  of  God 
when  he  had  no  righteousness  of  his  own.  There  is 
sometliing  wonderful  in  this  presentation  of  the  gospel 
of  Christ. 

M 


1/8  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

The  great  difference  between  men  is  not  that  one 
man  is  a  sinner  and  the  other  is  not.  We  are  all 
sinners  and  we  are  shut  up  in  sin.  The  question  is 
quite  a  different  one  from  that.  Are  you  willing  to 
recognize  the  fact  that  you  are  a  sinner,  that  you  are 
condemned  and  helpless  and  lost,  dependent  upon  the 
free  grace  of  God  in  Jesus  Christ  for  your  salvation? 
Are  you  willing  to  trust  this  provision  of  God's  mercy 
which  he  has  made  in  Jesus  Christ?  If  you  will  not, 
if  you  set  up  your  own  righteousness  and  pride  and 
trust  to  that,  then  you  are  surely  lost,  and  just  as 
surely  lost  as  that  you  live  to-day.  There  is  the  differ- 
ence. He  that  will  acknowledge  himself  to  be  a  lost 
sinner  and  depend  upon  the  atonement  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  his  crucified  God,  for  salvation,  is  saved. 
If  he  is  in  a  heathen  land,  and  casts  himself  upon  God's 
mercy,  he  can  be  saved  even  though  he  may  not  know 
of  the  name  of  the  Christ  who  saves  him. 

There  is  a  great  deal  of  difference  between  heathen 
morality  and  Christian  morality.  Heathenism  is  man's 
vain  effort  to  lift  himself  up  to  God.  Judaism  had  in  it 
something  of  the  heathen  element,  and  just  so  far  as  it 
had,  Paul  rejected  it  and  cast  it  out.  But  while  heathen- 
ism is  man's  vain  effort  to  lift  himself  to  God,  Chris- 
tianity is  God's  coming  down  to  man  and  lifting  him 
up  to  himself.  Heathenism  is  the  work  of  man's  self- 
righteousness  and  pride;  Christianity  is  the  humble 
reception  of  salvation  as  the  free  gift  of  infinite  grace 
to  a  lost  sinner  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 

Now  the  object  of  the  apostle  Paul,  his  great  object 
in  writing  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  was  to  set  forth 
this  truth  of  universal  significance,  this  truth  which  is 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    ROMANS  179 

an  article  of  standing  or  falling  faith,  of  standing  or 
falling  salvation ;  and  I  have  tried  to  set  before  you,  in 
a  very  imperfect  way,  the  order  of  its  treatment.  It 
simply  carries  out  the  one  great  aim  to  which  the  apos- 
tle Paul  devoted  his  life,  though  he  had  been  prepared 
for  it  by  his  own  inner  experience,  namely,  the  aim  of 
proclaiming  to  the  whole  world  the  gospel  of  salva- 
tion by  faith,  a  salvation  which  included  both  justifica- 
tion and  sanctification. 

It  is  very  remarkable  that  the  apostle  Paul,  who,  be- 
fore his  conversion,  was  the  greatest  enemy  of  Chris- 
tianity, has  become  the  founder  of  the  great  majority 
of  Christian  churches,  for  the  churches  that  were 
founded  by  the  Twelve  have  died  out.  Paul  is  the 
principal  author  of  the  New  Testament;  for,  including 
Luke  and  Acts,  which  were  probably  written  under  his 
supervision  and  with  his  sanction,  the  major  part  of 
the  New  Testament  may  be  attributed  to  Paul.  Chris- 
tian doctrine  owes  more  to  him  than  to  all  the  other 
twelve  apostles  put  together;  and  this  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  is  the  summary  of  Christian  doctrine  as  given 
us  by  the  apostle  Paul. 

Coleridge  said  of  this  Epistle  to  the  Romans  that 
it  was  the  profoundest  work  in  existence.  Godet 
calls  it  the  very  cathedral  of  the  Christian  faith.  It  is 
the  magna  charfa  of  our  religion ;  and  it  is  a  wonder- 
ful proof  that  God  can  take  even  his  enemies  and  can 
make  them  praise  him.  How  can  you  explain  this 
except  by  the  supernatural  power  and  grace  of  God  ? 

There  was  a  man  named  Julian  who  was  educated 
as  a  Christian  and  professed  Christianity;  and  then, 
under  the  influence  of  the  Platonic  philosophy,  he  gave 


l8o  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

up  his  faith  and  spent  all  his  days  and  all  his  influence 
(for  he  was  emperor  of  the  East)  in  waging  war  with 
the  Christianity  he  had  once  professed.  But  at  the 
last  he  felt  that  Christianity  was  too  much  for  him, 
and  with  his  dying  breath  he  exclaimed,  in  agony  and 
despair,  "  O  Nazarene,  thou  hast  conquered !  "  And 
here  was  the  apostle  Paul  who,  being  the  persecutor  of 
Christianity,  turned  to  Christ  and  became  the  greatest 
power  in  the  world. 

No  other  man  has  exercised  in  this  world  such  in- 
fluence as  the  apostle  Paul,  and  that  influence  is  bene- 
ficial beyond  all  expression  to-day.  Ah,  let  us  not  be 
broken  like  Julian,  but  let  us  bow  like  Paul ! 


THE  EPISTLES  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS 

The  city  of  Corinth,  where  the  church  was  situated 
to  which  Paul  wrote  the  letter,  or  the  letters,  which  we 
are  to  consider  this  morning,  was  a  place  that  had  been 
wealthy  and  famous  ever  since  the  time  of  Homer. 
It  was  situated  upon  the  isthmus,  or  just  at  the  isthmus, 
that  connected  the  Peloponnesus  with  the  northern  part 
of  Greece.  This  isthmus  constituted  a  sort  of  bridge 
from  the  south  to  the  north,  and  from  the  north  to  the 
south ;  and  all  who  went  from  the  north  to  the  south,  or 
from  the  south  to  the  north,  by  land,  must  necessarily 
go  across  it.  This  of  itself  made  Corinth  a  place  of 
great  commercial  importance ;  but  then,  besides  that,  it 
was  situated  between  two  seas.  There  was  the  port  of 
Cenchrea  on  the  east  and  the  port  of  Lechseum  on  the 
west,  both  of  which  were  the  seaports  of  Corinth ;  and 
all  the  traffic  from  Asia  to  the  West  at  one  time  passed 
through  Corinth.  It  was  much  easier  for  the  navigator 
and  avoided  doubling  those  difficult  and  dangerous 
capes  at  the  south  of  the  Peloponnesus;  and  so  his 
goods  were  transferred  from  one  ship  to  another,  and 
the  traffic  made  its  way  by  sea. 

I  do  not  know  that  even  this  situation  at  the  isthmus 
would  have  determined  the  rank  and  importance  of 
Corinth  if  it  had  not  been  that  it  was  marvelously 
furnished  by  way  of  defense.  The  earliest  settlements 
have  been  determined  by  possibilities  of  defense.  I 
suppose  that  the  earliest  Scotch  settlements  were  at 

i8i 


l82  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Edinburgh  simply  because  Edinburgh  has  a  natural 
fortress,  a  great  bluff,  which  could  be  easily  defended. 
Just  so  the  Acropolis  at  Athens  determined  the  very 
early  settlement  at  Athens,  and  just  so  at  Corinth  there 
was  a  great  hill  or  bluff,  higher  than  Gibraltar  and 
quite  as  steep,  one  thousand,  nine  hundred  feet  high, 
which  rose  close  to  the  sea,  at  the  foot  of  which  the  city 
was  built.  This  great  bluff,  or  Acropolis,  constituted 
a  sort  of  a  natural  fortress  and  defense  for  the  city. 

Here  were  celebrated  the  Isthmian  games,  at  which 
the  enterprising  of  northern  and  southern  Greece  con- 
tended for  the  prize.  Corinth  was  a  city  of  great  mag- 
nificence and  splendor  until  the  year  146  before  Christ, 
when  the  Romans  swept  over  Greece  and  the  Consul 
Mummius  took  the  city,  totally  destroyed  it,  and  car- 
ried back  from  it  to  Rome  the  richest  spoil  that  had 
ever  been  brought  from  the  East.  For  one  hundred 
years  Corinth  remained  in  perfect  desolation,  until  at 
last,  in  the  year  44  before  Christ,  Julius  Caesar  rebuilt 
the  city.  He  peopled  it  with  a  colony  of  Italian  freed- 
men ;  and  it  is  very  curious  that  we  meet,  in  the  refer- 
ences to  Corinth  in  the  New  Testament,  a  remarkable 
number  of  Latin  names,  which  look  exceedingly  curious 
as  you  see  them  masquerading  in  Greek  dress.  The 
names,  for  example,  of  Caius,  Quartus,  Fortunatus, 
Crispus,  and  Justus  are  all  of  them  Latin  and  yet  they 
take  the  Greek  form. 

The  colony  of  Julius  Caesar  very  rapidly  grew.  Mer- 
chants flocked  to  it.  The  Jews  came  there  to  trade, 
and  the  city  had  a  marvelous  growth,  a  growth  that 
was  like  the  growth  of  our  Western  American  towns. 
From  nothing,  in  one  hundred  years  it  had  grown  to 


THE    EPISTLES    TO    THE    CORINTHIANS  183 

be  a  city  of  six  hundred  thousand  inhabitants,  of 
whom  two  hundred  thousand  were  freedmen  and  four 
hundred  thousand  were  slaves. 

It  not  only  grew  in  numbers,  in  wealth,  and  magnifi- 
cence (for  here  were  situated  those  temples  built  of 
stone  to  which  Paul  alludes  in  his  First  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians),  but  it  was  also  celebrated  for  its  school 
of  rhetoric  and  philosophy.  There  were  workshops 
and  studios,  and  all  the  evidences  of  exceedingly  busy 
and  active  life;  but  with  all  the  literary  and  philosoph- 
ical advantages  of  the  place,  with  all  its  schools  for 
rhetoric  and  oratory,  there  was  also  an  esoteric  luxury 
and  licentiousness.  Corinth  was  one  of  the  very  worst 
cities  of  the  ancient  world. 

From  the  top  of  that  Acrocorinthus  of  Corinth,  one 
thousand,  nine  hundred  feet  high,  there  shone  far  off 
upon  the  ^gean  Sea  and  upon  all  the  surrounding 
country  of  Greece,  the  magnificent  temple  of  Venus, 
where  a  thousand  priestesses  were  consecrated  every 
year  to  immorality ;  and  the  names  "  Corinthian  ban- 
quet," "Corinthian  drinker,"  and  "Corinthian  girl" 
were  synonyms  for  all  that  was  defiled  and  base.  It 
was  in  Corinth,  you  remember,  a  little  later  than  the 
time  of  which  we  are  speaking  to-day;  it  was  in  Corinth 
and  with  the  sights  of  Corinth  before  him  that  the 
apostle  Paul  wrote  the  first  chapter  of  his  Epistle  to 
the  Romans,  with  its  terrible  list  of  the  infamous  do- 
ings of  the  heathen.  It  was  here  that  the  gospel  was  to 
make  its  inroads ;  it  was  here  to  be  determined  whether 
the  gospel  of  Christ  was  as  able  to  subdue  and  to  bring 
under  its  dominion  the  license  of  the  heathen  as  it  was 
to  subdue  and  put  away  the  Judaistic  yoke.    That  first 


184  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

entrance  of  Christianity  into  Corinth  was  forever 
memorable.  More  is  told  us  with  regard  to  the  begin- 
nings of  the  church  in  Corinth  than  in  regard  to  the 
beginnings  of  the  church  in  almost  any  other  place. 
Here  was  a  city  in  many  respects  like  our  modern  cities, 
a  city  of  exceedingly  intense  commercial  life,  a  money- 
getting  and  a  pleasure-loving  place,  a  place  that  was  at 
once  exceedingly  vicious  and  exceedingly  refined. 
What  a  question  it  was,  whether  the  gospel  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  could  win  triumphs  in  such  a  city  as  this ! 

It  was  in  the  year  52  of  our  era,  twenty-four  years 
after  the  ascension  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  at 
about  the  forty-fifth  year  of  the  apostle's  life,  toward 
the  close  of  his  second  missionary  journey,  or  during 
his  second  missionary  journey,  that  the  apostle  Paul 
first  found  his  way  into  the  city  of  Corinth.  This 
great  immoral  city  was  entered  by  Paul  as  a  solitary 
tent-maker.  We  do  not  know  that  he  had  a  single 
friend  or  a  single  acquaintance  in  the  place.  All  we 
know  is  that  he  found  a  certain  Jew  by  the  name  of 
Aquila,  who,  with  Priscilla  his  wife,  had  been  ban- 
ished from  Rome  by  the  Emperor  Claudius.  A  de- 
cree had  been  passed  expelling  the  Jews  from  Rome; 
Aquila  and  Priscilla,  his  wife,  found  their  way  to 
Corinth,  and  here  they  began  work  at  their  trade. 
Their  trade  was  the  same  as  Paul's. 

Every  Jew,  however  high-born  he  might  be,  how- 
ever well-to-do  he  might  be,  was  taught  his  trade.  It 
was  said  among  the  Jews  that  he  that  did  not  teach  his 
child  a  trade  did  teach  him  to  steal;  and  so  Paul  all 
through  his  missionary  life  was  dependent,  at  least  at 
times,  upon  the  work  of  his  own  hands.    He  went  into 


THE    EPISTLES    TO    THE    CORINTHIANS  185 

the  workshop  with  Aquila;  he  sat  side  by  side  with 
him,  we  may  believe;  he  worked  with  him  upon  the 
same  bench,  and  won  him  to  the  faith  of  the  gospel. 
This  was  the  slight  beginning  of  the  great  church  of 
Corinth. 

After  a  little,  Paul  was  emboldened  to  go  into  the 
synagogue  and  preach  Christ  there.  His  spirit  was 
stirred  within  him;  he  was  under  a  sort  of  transport; 
the  Holy  Spirit  moved  him  mightily  to  speak  for  Christ 
to  those- of  his  own  nation.  He  had  just  come  from 
Athens.  His  mission  at  Athens  had  been  a  sort  of 
failure.  He  had  preached  to  the  philosophers,  and  the 
philosophers  had  turned  a  deaf  ear  to  the  gospel  mes- 
sage. He  was  over-burdened;  he  was  full  of  care; 
he  felt  his  powerlessness  and  helplessness  to  contend 
with  the  great  powers  of  this  world  and  the  evil  of 
man ;  he  tells  the  Corinthians  that  when  he  came  among 
them  he  resolved  that  he  would  know  nothing  but 
Jesus  Christ  and  him  crucified.  In  other  words,  he 
would  not  trust  to  human  philosophy,  he  would  not 
trust  to  human  oratory,  he  would  not  trust  to  elo- 
quence, he  would  not  trust  to  speculation ;  but  he  would 
declare  with  the  utmost  simplicity  the  truths  of  the 
life  of  Christ,  and  would  trust  to  the  power  of  God 
alone  to  give  effect  to  his  words. 

He  entered  the  synagogue,  he  proclaimed  Christ; 
and  a  few  serious  hearts  were  deeply  impressed  and 
were  gained  for  the  Christian  faith.  Crispus,  the  ruler 
of  the  synagogue,  was  one  of  them.  But  Paul's  preach- 
ing ere  long  provoked  violent  antagonism  from  the 
Jews.  It  was  impossible  for  him  to  continue  his  work 
there ;  and  declaring  that  he  would  turn  to  the  Gentiles, 


l86  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

he  left  the  synagogue  and  began  his  preaching  in  a 
house  close  by,  belonging  to  a  Gentile  proselyte  named 
Justus;  and  there,  from  that  time,  the  meetings  of 
the  church  were  held.  Large  numbers  from  the  middle 
and  lower  classes  of  the  population,  both  Jews  and 
Gentiles,  but  mainly  from  the  Gentiles,  were  brought 
into  the  Corinthian  church. 

Paul  labored  there  for  a  whole  year  and  a  half;  and 
when  at  last  the  Jews,  provoked  by  his  success,  sought 
to  arouse  a  tumult  against  him  and  brought  him  before 
Gallio,  the  proconsul,  who  was,  you  remember,  an 
exceedingly  moderate  and  equitable  man,  the  brother 
of  Seneca,  a  philosopher  of  Rome,  Gallio  declared  he 
would  have  nothing  to  do  with  these  matters,  and 
drove  them  from  the  judgment-seat;  but  Paul,  antici- 
pating further  difficulty  and  hindrance  in  his  work, 
and  thinking  it  best,  temporarily  at  least,  to  depart, 
made  his  way  to  Asia  Minor  and  on  toward  Jerusalem. 

After  this  departure  of  Paul,  we  know  little  with 
regard  to  what  happened  in  the  Corinthian  church  ex- 
cept by  way  of  inference.  It  seems  that  a  man  by  the 
name  of  Apollos,  a  Jew  of  Alexandria,  a  man  who  was 
eloquent  and  mighty  in  the  Scriptures,  but  who  had 
never  been  fully  instructed  with  regard  to  the  Chris- 
tian scheme,  who  knew  Christianity  only  from  what 
he  had  heard  from  the  disciples  of  John  the  Baptist, 
came  to  Ephesus  and  began  to  preach  the  gospel  there. 
Aquila  and  Priscilla  had,  in  the  meantime,  made  their 
way  across  the  ^Egean  Sea  to  Ephesus  and  were  resi- 
ding there.  When  they  heard  Apollos  expounding  the 
truth  as  he  understood  it,  they,  having  had  better  in- 
struction from  the  lips  of  Paul,  saw  that  Apollos  needed 


THE    EPISTLES    TO    THE    CORINTHIANS  187 

further  light;  and  they  began  to  expound  the  gospel 
to  him  as  they  had  heard  it  from  the  apostle  Paul. 
Apollos,  learned  and  eloquent  as  he  was,  seems  to  have 
been  a  docile  hearer.  Priscilla  was  apparently  the  one 
who  did  the  most  of  the  talking  and  preaching  to 
Apollos;  for  you  find  that  Priscilla's  name  is  a  num- 
ber of  times  mentioned  first,  as  if  she  were  the  one 
who,  by  her  sympathy  and  by  her  interest  in  Apollos, 
had  done  the  most  to  bring  him  to  a  better  understand- 
ing of  the  Christian  faith. 

After  Apollos  had  been  thus  instructed,  these  new 
friends  and  instructors  of  his  thought  there  was  an 
excellent  opportunity  for  him  to  do  work  for  Christ  in 
the  Corinthian  church;  so  they  sent  him  with  letters 
over  to  Corinth,  and  Apollos  supplemented  there  the 
work  of  Paul. 

It  is  easy  to  see  that  Apollos  was  a  man  of  different 
mold  from  Paul.  Paul  had  preached  with  the  utmost 
simplicity ;  Paul  had  preached  fundamental  truth ;  Paul 
had  not  used  the  arts  of  oratory  or  the  methods  of 
philosophy;  those  whom  he  had  gained  he  had  gained 
simply  by  a  deep  inward  conviction  of  the  truth.  The 
preaching  of  Apollos  was  more  showy  than  that  of 
Paul.  It  won  a  new  class  of  persons,  a  class  of  per- 
sons, we  may  believe,  who  were  not  so  thoughtful,  who 
were  not  so  thoroughly  instructed  when  they  came  into 
the  Christian  church.  They  were  more  commonly 
from  the  class  that  had  been  accustomed  to  attend  the 
heathen  schools  of  oratory.  It  was  a  more  superficial 
impression  that  was  made  upon  them.  The  eloquence 
of  Apollos  and  the  philosophical  art  with  which  he  ex- 
pounded the  Scriptures  made  its  impression  upon  them. 


l88  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

The  result  was  that  a  different  class  of  persons,  to 
some  extent,  was  brought  into  the  Corinthian  church; 
and  naturally  those  who  were  later  brought  in,  under 
the  influence  of  Apollos,  and  who  had  known  very  little 
with  regard  to  the  preaching  of  Paul,  were  inclined 
to  pay  great  respect  to  the  new  preacher,  under  whose 
influence  they  had  received  the  gospel.  And  as  they 
found  some  differences  of  temperament  and  of  feeling, 
and  some  differences  of  method  between  the  older 
members  of  the  church  and  themselves,  it  was  very 
natural  that  there  should  spring  up  a  party  feeling  in 
the  church  and  that  some  should  say :  ''  I  am  of  Paul ; 
I  am  one  of  the  constituent  members  of  the  church ;  I 
am  one  of  those  who  were  brought  in  under  the  origi- 
nal preaching  of  the  great  apostle  " ;  and  then  the  others 
would  say :  ''  I  belong  to  the  party  of  Apollos ;  I  was 
brought  in  under  the  influence  of  this  great  and  elo- 
quent preacher  of  the  gospel." 

We  have  no  reason  to  believe  that  this  party  division 
was  encouraged  by  Apollos  himself.  We  have  every 
reason,  on  the  other  hand,  to  believe  that  it  was  not; 
but  Apollos  speedily  took  his  departure,  and  the  result 
was  that  there  were  two  parties  left  in  the  church, 
which,  to  a  certain  extent,  began  to  antagonize  one 
another.  We  read  also  of  a  party  of  Cephas.  Some 
think  there  was  a  visit  of  the  apostle  Peter  to  the 
church ;  but  I  do  not  know  that  we  can  be  certain  with 
regard  to  it.  Then  we  read  of  a  party  of  Christ. 
Some  think  there  were  emissaries  from  Jerusalem-,  who 
claimed  to  have  special  relations  to  Christ,  and  to 
have  more  authority  even  than  the  original  Twelve.  At 
any  rate,  it  is  perfectly  plain  that  after  a  few  years  the 


THE    EPISTLES    TO    THE    CORINTHIANS  189 

church  at  Corinth  was  divided  into  parties,  and  that 
party  strife  and  party  feeHng  had  already  done  much 
to  hinder  the  work  of  the  gospel. 

It  was  at  this  time,  about  five  years  after  the  original 
foundation  of  the  church,  in  the  spring  of  the  year  57, 
that  Paul,  after  having  been  to  Jerusalem,  started  out 
on  his  third  missionary  journey  and  came  to  Ephesus. 
x\t  Ephesus  he  remained  for  two  or  three  years.  He 
lectured  daily  in  the  school  of  the  rhetorician  Tyrannus. 
Toward  the  close  of  that  time  the  church  in  Corinth, 
in  perplexity  with  regard  to  some  matters  which  they 
did  not  know  how  to  decide  for  themselves,  sent  a 
letter  to  the  apostle  Paul,  asking  for  his  advice,  but 
not  mentioning  all  the  real  difficulties  that  existed  in 
the  church.  That  letter,  however,  was  supplemented 
by  the  information  that  was  given  by  a  woman  named 
Chloe,  a  member  of  the  church  at  Cenchrea,  who  came 
across  to  Ephesus,  and  who  informed  the  apostle  Paul 
with  regard  to  other  troubles  in  the  church  which 
needed  the  exercise  of  his  apostolic  authority;  and 
Paul,  feeling  that  there  was  great  danger  of  all  the 
fruits  of  his  year  and  a  half's  labor  being  swept  away, 
sat  down  and  wrote  to  the  church  at  Corinth  the  First 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians — that  great  Epistle  which  is 
next  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  in  its  practical  value 
for  us  among  the  Epistles  of  the  Xew  Testament. 

The  object  of  this  Epistle  was  quite  different 
from  that  which  Paul  had  in  mind  when  he  wrote  his 
Epistle  to  the  Romans.  In  writing  to  the  Romans, 
whom  he  had  never  seen  and  who  had  never  heard  his 
preaching,  his  object  was  to  set  forth  in  a  semiphilo- 
sophical  treatise  the  way  of  salvation,  the  doctrine  of 


190  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Christ — not  so  much  the  facts  of  Christ's  life,  because 
they  existed  in  the  oral  gospel,  which  I  suppose  was 
familiar  to  the  Christians  at  Rome;  but  the  way  of 
salvation,  the  system  of  Christian  doctrine  just  so  far 
as  it  had  to  do  with  the  justification  and  sanctification 
of  man;  but  when  Paul  wrote  his  letters  to  the  Cor- 
inthians he  did  not  need  to  set  forth  the  way  of  salva- 
tion as  he  set  it  forth  to  the  Romans,  because  he  had 
preached  at  Corinth  for  a  whole  year  and  a  half,  and 
they  were  familiar  with  his  general  doctrine. 

They  did  need  something  very  different.  They 
needed  to  have  particular  difficulties  removed.  They 
needed  to  have  some  of  their  important  questions  set- 
tled ;  and  so  the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians  dealt  more 
with  casuistry,  dealt  more  with  questions  of  conscience, 
dealt  more  with  practical  matters.  In  other  words, 
they  seem  to  proceed  from  a  pastoral  mind  and  heart, 
rather  than  from  the  mind  and  heart  of  a  teacher  of 
doctrine;  and  that  is  the  great  difference  between  the 
Epistles  to  the  Corinthians  and  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans.  The  Epistle  to  the  Romans  gives  us  mainly 
the  doctrine  of  Paul.  The  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians 
deal  with  questions  of  practice.  Paul  treats  these 
questions  in  no  superficial  way,  but  in  the  most  fun- 
damental way.  He  makes  each  particular  difficulty, 
each  particular  trouble,  the  occasion  of  elucidating  a 
fundamental  principle,  so  that  there  is  no  compromi- 
sing, no  settling  of  the  case  upon  mere  grounds  of  ex- 
pediency. In  every  instance  Paul  goes  to  the  very 
root  of  the  matter,  and  decides  the  case  in  such  a  way 
that  it  is  a  decision  not  only  for  the  church  of  Corinth 
at  that  time,  but  a  decision  for  all  churches  in  all  times 


THE    EPISTLES    TO    THE    CORINTHIANS  IQI 

thereafter.  I  do  not  mean  that  the  exact  application 
of  the  principle  which  Paul  makes  to  the  Corinthian 
church  is  necessarily  the  exact  application  which  we  are 
to  rriake  of  the  principle  to-day;  but  I  do  mean  that 
Paul,  in  deciding  the  questions  that  arose  in  the  Cor- 
inthian church,  gives  such  an  exposition  of  the  princi- 
ple that  applies  to  that  case  that  we,  taking  that  same 
principle,  may  make  our  own  application  to  the  pecu- 
liar circumstances  of  our  own  day. 

Now,  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  treats  a 
great  variety  of  things.  There  are  ten  important  and 
difficult  questions  with  which  Paul  has  to  deal.  They 
are  questions  so  vague,  and  they  are  questions  that 
require  so  much  of  wisdom  to  decide,  that,  as  you  re- 
view them  one  after  another,  and  as  you  see  with  what 
skill,  with  what  discretion  and  far-sighted  wisdom  the 
apostle  determines  them,  it  seems  of  itself  to  be  proof 
that  he  was  ordained  and  inspired  by  God. 

Take  this  matter,  for  example,  of  party  spirit. 
Parties  among  the  Corinthians  had  a  sort  of  half- 
idolatrous  regard  for  special  ministers  or  leaders  of 
the  church.  Paul  decides  all  this  matter  by  bringing 
to  mind  the  nature  of  the  gospel,  and  by  showing  that 
the  gospel  brings  us  into  absolute  allegiance  to  Jesus 
Christ,  brings  us  into  direct  relations  to  the  Lord.  We 
have  personal  dealings  with  a  personal  Saviour.  Chris- 
tian ministers?  What  are  they  but  servants  of  Christ 
whose  object  is  not  to  bring  us  into  allegiance  to  them- 
selves, but  to  bring  us  directly  to  the  Saviour  that  we 
may  bow  at  his  feet  and  consecrate  ourselves  entirely 
to  him!  Therefore  he  is  the  greatest  minister  of  the 
gospel  who  is  the  most  of  a  servant,  who  puts  himself 


192  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

most  completely  out  of  sight.  ''  Paul  may  plant,  and 
Apollos  may  water,  but  it  is  only  God  who  gives  the 
increase."  So  Paul  gives  us  a  proper  idea  of  the  rela- 
tion between  the  minister  and  the  church.  The  church 
is  not  to  think  that  because  it  has  had  the  advantage 
of  the  services  of  a  certain  minister  of  Christ,  there- 
fore it  is  to  give  a  sort  of  idolatrous  reverence  to  him. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  to  reverence  the  Lord  and  to 
recognize  the  minister  as  the  servant  of  the  church 
for  Jesus'  sake.  Therefore  the  reverence  that  the 
Corinthians  were  tempted  to  give  to  the  servant  he 
urges  them  to  transfer  to  the  Lord. 

Here  is  a  principle  of  vast  importance,  of  perma- 
nent application.  How  important  the  application  of 
it  is  to-day !  How  many  people  there  are  now  who,  in 
going  into  the  church,  go  into  the  church  as  followers 
of  the  minister  rather  than  as  followers  of  Christ,  and 
who,  therefore,  when  the  minister  changes  his  place, 
are  utterly  lost  to  the  church  and  the  cause.  This  same 
principle  which  the  apostle  Paul  has  laid  down  to  the 
early  church  in  this  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  would 
meet  very  many  of  our  church  difficulties  to-day. 

Now,  the  second  great  difficulty  that  the  apostle 
Paul  had  to  meet  in  the  church  of  the  Corinthians 
was  the  difficulty  of  immorality.  There  were  three 
different  immoral  things  with  which  he  had  to  con- 
tend. There  was  a  particular  case,  you  know,  of 
shameful  irregularity  in  the  case  of  an  incestuous 
person ;  and  the  church  Is  exhorted  to  meet  together,  to 
excommunicate  the  man,  and  to  clear  its  skirts  of  his 
iniquity.  Then  there  is  the  matter  of  lawsuits  before 
heathen  judges.     Christians  had  come  to  take  their 


THE    EPISTLES    TO    THE    CORINTHIANS  I93 

disputes  before  the  heathen  tribunals,  instead  of  show- 
ing consideration  and  love  for  one  another  and  submit- 
ting these  disputes  to  the  brethren  in  the  church.  Then 
there  were  matters  of  impurity  which  were  the  natural 
sequence  of  the  former  impure  heathen  life  which  so 
many  of  the  Christian  converts  had  previously  led. 

Paul  treats  all  this  with  the  utmost  discretion,  with 
the  utmost  delicacy;  and  in  each  case  he  gives  us  a 
fundamental  principle  which  is  sufficient  to  settle  the 
whole  matter  and  to  restore  harmony  and  union  in  the 
church. 

There  is  a  question  with  regard  to  self-denial,  a 
question  with  regard  to  meats,  the  use  of  meats  of- 
fered to  idols.  You  know,  in  those  heathen  cities, 
where  there  were  great  heathen  temples,  almost  all  the 
animals  that  were  slain  for  food  had,  before  they  were 
slain,  been  presented  at  an  idol  temple  as  an  offering 
to  the  idol.  Some  portion  of  the  animal  was  laid  upon 
the  altar,  or  presented  to  the  priest,  and  then  the  rest 
was  taken  to  the  market  and  sold.  Many  a  Christian 
convert,  especially  those  who  were  converted  from 
among  the  Jews,  had  a  scruple  of  conscience  about 
eating  the  meat  that  had  been  consecrated  to  a  heathen 
god,  and  the  consciences  of  the  weak  were  injured  by 
the  practice  of  some  who  ate  such  meat. 

The  apostle  Paul  declares  that  although  the  meat 
in  itself  did  not  harm,  and  the  mere  fact  that  it  had  been 
offered  at  a  heathen  altar  did  not  in  any  way  harm  it, 
at  the  same  time  if  his  eating  this  meat  made  his 
brother  to  offend  he  would  not  eat  any  more  while  the 
world  stood.  He  would  not  set  an  evil  example  before 
another  that  would  make  him  stumble  and  fall.  Love 
N 


194  THE    BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

for  Christ  should  induce  him  to  deny  himself  in  some 
of  these  things  which  it  was  perfectly  right  for  him 
abstractly  to  partake  of.  It  was  almost  impossible  in  a 
city  like  Corinth  to  get  any  meat  at  all  that  had  not 
been  offered  to  an  idol.  It  was  a  serious  practical 
question  as  to  where  one  was  to  get  this  staple  article 
of  food,  so  long  as  he  could  not  partake  of  the  meat 
offered  to  an  idol.  Paul  tells  us  that-  the  meat  is  the 
same,  whether  offered  to  an  idol  or  not ;  any  man  can 
partake  of  it  so  long  as  he  does  not  violate  the  con- 
science of  another;  but  let  Christian  love  be  the  main 
determining  element  in  the  case. 

There  was  a  matter  with  regard  to  marriage.  Some 
of  the  Jewish  converts  were  inclined  to  taboo  marriage 
entirely,  and  to  hold,  in  a  sort  of  ascetic  way,  that  it 
was  a  wrong  thing  for  man  to  marry  at  all.  Paul  set- 
tles this  matter  also  by  declaring  that  marriage  is  a 
divine  institution;  that  although  there  might  be  rea- 
sons which  made  it  inexpedient  to  marry,  there  was  no 
ordinance  against  it ;  and  that,  moreover,  in  many  cases 
marriage  was  the  desirable  and  natural  and  proper 
course  on  the  part  of  Christian  converts. 

The  apostle  comes  to  certain  other  cases  which  we 
may  call  cases  of  disorder  in  the  church.  There  was  a 
practice  which  women  had,  or  were  beginning  to  have, 
of  coming  into  the  assemblies  of  the  church  unveiled. 
In  Corinth  it  was  customary  for  women  as  they  went 
in  public  to  be  veiled.  It  was  the  custom  of  the  East, 
and  it  is  the  custom  of  the  East  to-day. 

When  I  went  to  Beyrout,  in  Syria,  I  attended  the 
chapel  of  the  American  Mission  there,  and  Doctor 
Thompson,  the  author  of  "  The  Land  and  the  Book," 


THE    EPISTLES    TO    THE    CORINTHIANS  I95 

preached  a  sermon.  I  went  into  the  audience-room  and 
sat  down  in  one  arm  of  an  ell.  The  room  was  a 
double  one,  and  it  had  two  arms.  The  pulpit  was  in 
the  angle  between  the  two,  and  right  before  the  pulpit, 
diagonally,  was  a  curtain.  I  took  my  seat  among  Jews, 
Arabs,  and  Europeans,  and  the  singing  and  the  prayer 
proceeded.  When  they  began  to  sing  I  found  what  I 
had  not  before  suspected,  that  the  part  of  the  audience 
where  I  was,  was  only  a  small  part  of  the  number 
actually  there,  for  beyond  that  curtain  and  in  the  other 
arm  of  the  ell  many  women  were  assembled.  They 
sang  just  as  we  men  sang  in  the  part  of  the  room 
where  I  was,  but  the  men  could  not  see  the  women,  and 
the  women  could  not  see  the  men. 

That  was  a  Christian  congregation,  only  a  few  years 
ago,  in  a  city  in  which  women  and  men  were  entirely 
separated  in  worship,  out  of  respect  to  that  old  fashion 
of  the  East.  To  this  day  in  the  streets  of  Beyrout 
and  Damascus  women  cannot  go  unveiled  except  at 
the  risk  of  exposing  themselves  to  public  reproach  and 
of  being  stoned.  Now,  what  is  true  to-day  in  the  cities 
of  the  East  was  true  in  Corinth  at  the  time  of  the 
apostle  Paul.  But  Christian  women,  possessed  of  the 
new  freedom  which  belonged  to  them  in  Christ,  began 
to  think  they  might  transgress  some  of  these  laws  of 
discretion.  They  came  into  the  assembly  of  the  church 
unveiled,  and  participated  in  the  meeting  as  men  would 
do.  Now,  the  apostle  Paul  settles  that  matter  by  re- 
ferring to  the  modesty  and  subordination  of  the  female 
sex.  He  declares  that  it  is  not  right  for  a  woman  to 
transgress  these  bounds ;  and  so  he  applies  the  principle 
to  those  times  and  circumstances. 


196  THE   BOOKS   OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

The  principle  of  modesty  and  subordination  is  just 
as  obligatory  to-day  as  it  was  in  the  time  of  Paul ;  but 
the  application  of  the  principle  may  be  very  different 
in  our  day  from  what  it  was  in  the  days  of  the  apostle. 
Modesty  and  subordination  to-day  may  not  require  all 
that  it  required  in  those  days.  It  is  not  a  breach  of 
modesty  or  propriety  for  a  woman  to  go  unveiled  to- 
day in  the  street  or  in  a  place  of  public  worship.  It 
would  be  no  breach  of  modesty  or  propriety  to-day 
for  a  woman  to  cut  her  hair;  but  in  the  days  of  the 
apostle  Paul  he  forbade  it,  because  it  was  at  that  time  a 
breach  of  the  principle  of  modesty  and  subordination. 

So  with  regard  to  spiritual  gifts.  The  apostle  re- 
bukes those  who  are  inclined  to  make  more  of  the 
showy  gifts  than  of  those  gifts  which  minister  to 
public  instruction.  He  rebukes  the  disorder  which  at- 
tended the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  When 
we  think  that  the  Corinthian  church,  in  celebrating  that 
sacred  ordinance,  was  guilty  of  such  disorder,  such 
rudeness,  such  want  of  consideration,  we  can  hardly 
believe  that  it  was  a  Christian  church  at  all.  Let  us 
remember  that  they  were  half-heathen  yet.  They  had 
come  into  the  Christian  church  with  many  of  their 
heathen  habits  and  heathen  notions,  and  it  was  a 
long  time  before  the  religion  of  Christ  could  absolutely 
sweep  away  these  relics  of  a  heathen  past. 

Last  of  all,  the  apostle  treats  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection.  Many  of  those  who  had  been  accustomed 
to  speculate  could  not  understand  how  there  could  be  a 
resurrection  from  the  dead.  Paul  first  declares  the 
fact.  He  declares  that  if  Christ  has  not  risen,  then  our 
hope  Is  vain ;  and  If  Christ  is  risen  from  the  dead,  then 


THE    EPISTLES    TO    THE    CORINTHIANS  I97 

we  who  belong  to  Christ  shall  also  rise.  Christ's  resur- 
rection is  the  pledge  of  the  resurrection  of  his  people ; 
and  Paul  tells  us  that  that  resurrection  is  a  resurrec- 
tion to  spiritual  life.  We  are  to  have  a  spiritual  body, 
by  which  I  suppose  he  means  not  a  body  which  is 
spirit,  which  is  a  contradiction  of  terms,  but  a  body 
that  is  perfect,  a  body  swift  in  movement  as  the  light, 
and,  notwithstanding,  composed  of  material  elements. 
The  mystery  of  resurrection  is  not,  by  any  means, 
solved,  nor  is  it  shown  how  the  thing  may  be;  but  he 
tells  us  that  God  can  and  will  work  this  wonder  for  his 
people. 

Now,  the  apostle  leaves  his  letter  to  produce  its 
proper  result.  He  goes  on  with  his  work.  But  his 
heart  is  deeply  burdened ;  he  longs  to  know  the  result 
of  this  instruction.  Will  this  Corinthian  church  obey 
his  teaching?  Will  it  give  up  this  party  spirit?  Will  it 
harmonize  its  differences  and  accept  his  doctrine  ?  All 
this  rests  like  a  burden  upon  his  heart;  and  when  the 
uproar  occurs  at  Ephesus  and  drives  him  out,  he  goes 
to  Troas,  trying  to  get  a  little  nearer  to  Corinth.  In 
order  to  learn  the  news  he  sends  Titus  to  Corinth  to 
enforce  his  instructions.  Learning  nothing  at  Troas, 
he  goes  on  to  Macedonia.  There  Titus  comes  to  him, 
bringing  news  that  the  Corinthians  had  received  his 
letter  as  the  very  word  of  God;  that  they  had  excom- 
municated the  incestuous  person;  that  they  had  sub- 
mitted themselves  to  his  commands ;  and  that  the  main 
sources  of  difficulty  and  trouble  had  been  removed. 

His  deep  anxiety  was  suddenly  changed  to  over- 
flowing joy.  He  sits  down  and  writes  the  Second 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  at  Philippi,  about  six  months 


198  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

after  the  first  had  been  written.  In  that  Second  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians  the  very  heart  of  the  apostle  Paul 
pours  itself  out  in  gratitude  and  love,  and  in  thanks- 
giving to  God  for  what  he  had  wrought  in  the  church 
of  Corinth.  After  the  first  part  of  the  Second  Epistle, 
devoted  to  this  expression  of  gratitude,  has  been  writ- 
ten, he  passes  on  to  urge  them  now,  as  a  token  of  their 
thankfulness  to  God,  to  partake  in  a  contribution  which 
he  is  making  up  for  the  church  at  Jerusalem.  He 
wishes  to  carry  back  to  Jerusalem  a  last  token  of  his 
regard  for  the  mother  church,  from  which  all  these 
churches  through  the  world  have  sprung,  and  he  wants 
to  engage  the  members  of  the  church  at  Corinth  in  the 
work  of  making  up  this  collection. 

Then  he  devotes  the  last  portion  of  the  Second 
Epistle  to  urging  his  claims  upon  those  who  still  re- 
sist his  authority,  for  there  were  some  bitter  Jews  who 
still  resisted  him,  and  he  warns  them  that  when  he 
comes  to  them,  as  he  shortly  will,  he  will  show  that  he 
is  strong  in  his  personal  presence  as  well  as  strong 
in  his  letters. 

These  two  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians  are  wonder- 
ful Epistles.  They  show  the  apostle's  wisdom,  but 
then  they  also  show  the  apostle's  heart.  There  is  a 
gentleness  and  tenderness  in  them  that  is  marvelous. 
I  do  not  wonder  that  Lord  Littleton  called  the  apostle 
Paul  the  finest  gentleman  that  ever  lived. 

Think  of  the  church  at  Corinth.  How  the  apostle 
trusted  them,  and  what  courtesy  he  showed  them !  He 
wants  them  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus.  That  was  what 
they  ought  to  be,  that  was  their  normal  condition. 
Paul  knew  there  were  many  good  souls  among  them 


THE   EPISTLES    TO    THE    CORINTHIANS  I99 

that  longed  for  nothing  but  the  coming  of  God ;  and  he 
groups  them  all  together  and  speaks  of  them  as  Chris- 
tians and  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus. 

It  is  a  beautiful  illustration  of  the  way  in  which 
Christians  ought  to  take  people  at  their  best,  have  a 
high  consideration  for  them,  make  allowance  for  their 
failures,  take  it  for  granted  that  they  intend  to  do  well, 
and  then  urge  them  to  be  faithful  to  the  gospel  of 
Jesus  Christ. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  GALATIANS 

We  study  to-day  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  Galatia 
constituted  a  large  part  of  central  Asia  Minor.  It  had 
large  cities — Pessinus,  Ancyra,  Tavium,  and  Iconium. 
At  Pessinus  there  was  the  temple  of  the  goddess  Cy- 
bele,  the  most  widely  revered  of  all  pagan  divinities; 
and  at  Ancyra  there  was  the  temple  of  Augustus  and 
Rome.  But  the  Galatians,  to  whom  the  apostle  wrote 
his  Epistle,  were  not  scattered  through  all  that  Roman 
Province  of  Galatia;  they  belonged  to  the  region  of 
the  Gauls,  in  the  northwestern  part  of  Galatia.  With 
Moffatt,  in  the  "Encyclopedia  Brittannica,"  ii  :  394, 
I  hold  to  the  North  Galatian,  rather  than  to  the  South 
Galatian,  theory  as  to  locality.^ 

It  is  very  interesting  to  observe  that  Galati  and 
Gauls  are  the  same  thing.  Galati,  Galli,  Gauls  are  all 
one.  It  may  surprise  you  at  first  to  have  these  people 
in  northwestern  Asia  Minor  identified  with  the  Gauls 
of  France  and  the  west  bank  of  the  Rhine ;  but  so  it  is, 
and  modern  ethnological  and  genealogical  research  has 
brought  this  fact  to  light.  This  fact  helps  us  very  much 
to  understand  the  Epistle  which  we  are  studying  to-day. 

In  general  we  may  say  that  the  migration  of  nations 
has  been  from  the  east  to  the  west.    Wave  after  wave 

1  MoflFatt's  words  are  :  "The  identification  of  Gal.  2  :  i-io  with  Acts  11  :  28  f.,  and 
not  with  Acts  15,  appears  quite  untenable,  while  a  fair  exegesis  of  Acts  16  : 1-6  implies 
a  distinction  between  such  towns  as  Lystra,  Derbe,  and  Iconium  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  Galatian  X'^P"-  with  Phrygia  upon  the  other."  Moffatt's  view  is  also  held 
by  Schmiedel,  in  his  article  on  Galatians,  in  the  "Encyclopaedia  Biblica";  and  by 
Gilbert,  in  his  "Student's  Life  of  Paul." 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    GALATIANS  20I 

went  westward  from  Central  Asia,  until  at  last  each 
wave  broke  upon  the  coast  of  the  ocean.  Wave  after 
wave  went  westward,  but  there  were  some  refluent 
waves.  There  was  occasionally  a  backward  movement. 
Although  the  tide  generally  flowed  from  the  east  to 
the  west,  there  was  occasionally  an  ebb-tide;  and  such 
an  ebb-tide  in  this  advance  of  population  gave  rise  to 
the  settlement  of  this  portion  of  Asia  Minor  by  the 
Gauls.  Repulsed  perhaps  by  the  chilly  climate  and  al- 
most impenetrable  forests,  some  of  these  Gauls  turned 
back  from  the  west  bank  of  the  Rhine  and  marched  in 
a  southeasterly  direction,  probably  in  order  that  they 
might  find  a  warmer  climate  and  more  fertile  soil. 

They  were  warlike  and  freedom-loving;  they  made 
their  attempt  to  conquer  Greece ;  and  from  Greece  they 
were  repulsed.  Having  been  repulsed  from  Greece, 
they  seem  still  to  have  pursued  their  march  in  a 
southeasterly  direction  until,  invited  by  Nicomedes, 
King  of  Bithynia,  in  Asia  Minor,  they  crossed  the 
Hellespont,  conquered  the  central  portion  of  Asia 
Minor,  and  there  took  up  their  permanent  abode. 

These  Gauls,  half-barbarians  as  they  were,  were 
the  scourge  and  terror  of  Asia  Minor  for  almost  half 
a  century;  but  Greeks  settled  among  them  in  so  great 
numbers  that  the  region  began  to  be  called  Gallo- 
Graecia.  And  Jews  settled  among  them,  because  this 
country  was  in  direct  line  of  the  caravan  route  from  the 
East  to  the  West.  The  Jew  had  ever  in  mind  the  pur- 
pose of  trade.  The  Greeks  and  the  Jews  gradually 
mixed  with  the  original  Gallic  and  barbarian  popu- 
lation, until  at  last  they  became  more  quiet  and  civil- 
ized and  more  settled  in  their  habits. 


202  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

This  invasion  of  which  I  have  spoken,  and  the  con- 
quest of  central  Asia  Minor  by  the  Gauls,  took  place 
in  the  year  280  before  Christ.  A  century  after  that 
time,  having  become  much  more  civilized  and  proba- 
bly considerably  less  warlike,  they  were  subdued  by 
the  power  of  the  Romans  in  187.  They  submitted  to 
the  Romans,  and  in  the  year  26  before  Christ  this 
region  became  the  Roman  Province  of  Galatia. 

This  fact  of  the  Gallic  origin  of  the  Galatians 
throws  a  good  deal  of  light  upon  the  characteristics 
of  the  people.  The  Gauls  were  modern  French.  The 
French  are  the  representatives  of  the  ancient  Gauls. 
It  is  astonishing  how  national  types  persist  not  only 
from  one  generation  to  another,  but  from  one  century 
and  from  one  millennium  to  another.  From  the  very 
beginning  the  Gallic  nation  has  been  noted  as  impul- 
sive and  inconstant.  Caesar  spoke,  even  in  his  day, 
when  he  came  in  conflict  with  them  in  Gaul,  of  their 
mobility  and  levity  of  mind.  In  other  words,  they  were 
distinguished  then,  as  they  have  been  distinguished  ever 
since,  for  instability  and  fickleness.  They  had  what  has 
sometimes  been  called  the  fatal  gift  of  fascination. 
They  were  mobile  of  temperament,  they  were  attract- 
ive in  manner,  they  had  gifts  of  eloquence,  they  were 
easily  impressed;  but,  alas,  they  very  quickly  lost  the 
impression  that  had  been  made  upon  them,  and  they 
were  also  prone  to  peculiar  kinds  and  forms  of  re- 
ligion. Caesar,  in  addition  to  what  I  have  said  with 
regard  to  their  natural  characteristics,  declares  that 
they  were  a  race  excessively  devoted  to  outward  ob- 
servances. In  other  words,  a  spirit  not  too  persevering 
and  rather  superficial,  easily  excited  and  moved,  was 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    GALATIANS  203 

more  prone  to  accept  the  outward  forms  of  religion 
than  it  was  to  take  strong  hold  of  its  inner  substance ; 
and  so  we  find  that  from  early  times  down  to  the  pres- 
ent that  race  has  been  noted  for  its  love  of  showy  and 
ceremonial  observances,  for  its  willingness  to  follow  the 
lead  of  hierarchy,  for  its  submission  to  the  external 
claims  of  priests,  and  for  its  domination  by  a  self- 
glorifying  spirit. 

These  being  the  characteristics  of  the  Galatians, 
those  ancient  Frenchmen,  we  can  see  how  peculiarly 
adapted  the  soil  was  for  the  seed  that  came  to  be 
planted  in  it. 

A  few  words  with  regard  to  the  early  history  of  the 
church  in  Galatia  will  be  necessary,  in  order  to  under- 
stand the  Epistle  which  Paul  wrote.  It  is  very  sur- 
prising that  in  the  Acts  we  have  almost  no  mention  of 
the  apostle's  first  visit  to  Galatia,  and  we  have  abso- 
lutely no  mention  of  his  second  visit  to  Galatia.  Luke 
tells  us  simply  that  they  went  through  the  region  of 
Galatia;  but  he  does  not  tell  us  that  Paul  preached 
there,  nor  does  he  tell  us  that  any  churches  were 
founded  there.  Is  this  silence  on  the  part  of  Luke 
(which  substantially  is  the  silence  of  Paul,  of  whom 
Luke  is  the  interpreter)  due  to  the  fact  that  the  church 
so  soon  and  so  quickly  swerved  from  the  truth,  and 
made  both  Paul  and  Luke  willing  to  say  just  as  little 
about  it  as  possible  ?  So  it  may  be.  At  any  rate,  it  is 
mainly  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  itself  that  we 
know  the  circumstances  under  which  the  church  was 
originally  founded. 

It  seems  that  during  Paul's  second  missionary  jour- 
ney, in  the  year  51  or  52,  the  apostle,  not  from  any 


204  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

desire  of  his  own,  but  quite  contrary  to  his  will,  was 
detained  in  this  region  of  Galatia  by  a  serious  illness. 
It  is  exceedingly  probable  that  he  found  shelter  and 
nursing  in  some  Jewish  family;  and  since  a  man  like 
the  apostle  Paul  felt  that  he  was  a  debtor  both  to  the 
Jew  and  the  barbarian,  there  can  be  no  question  what- 
ever that  he  began  to  preach.  And  although  it  was 
not  his  intention  to  remain  there  long,  his  preaching 
seems  to  have  been  accompanied  by  the  power  of  God, 
and  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  began  to  be  converted  to 
Christ;  in  fact,  they  received  his  gospel  with  great 
joy;  and  the  apostle,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians, 
looks  back  to  that  time,  to  his  first  warm  reception 
among  them,  with  the  deepest  emotion.  He  makes 
mention  of  their  earnest  love  for  him,  and  their  will- 
ingness, if  it  were  necessary,  to  pluck  out  their  own 
eyes  and  give  to  him. 

Some  have  thought  that  the  "  thorn  in  the  flesh," 
with  which  the  apostle  was  afflicted,  was  a  continuous 
and  painful  disease  of  the  eyes,  so  that  it  could  be 
said  that  his  bodily  appearance  was  weak;  and  some 
have  connected  this  disease  of  the  eyes  with  that  vision 
of  the  Saviour  on  the  way  to  Damascus,  when  the  glory 
of  the  Lord  smote  him  on  the  face  and  there  was  left, 
even  upon  his  physical  system,  such  a  sign  or  mark  of 
this  miraculous  turning  of  the  apostle  to  God  as  was 
a  permanent  reminder  of  what  he  had  been  in  the  past, 
and  of  the  great  change  that  had  come  over  him. 

He  says  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  **  You 
would  have  plucked  out  your  own  eyes  and  given  them 
to  me."  Some  think  we  have  an  allusion  to  the  very 
trouble  or  malady  with  which  Paul  was  afflicted  when, 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    GALATIANS  205 

at  the  close  of  the  Epistle,  he  says :  "  Ye  see  with  how 
large  letters  I  have  written  unto  you  with  my  own 
hand."  The  subscription  of  the  letter  is  written  by  the 
apostle  himself,  whereas  all  the  earlier  portion  of  the 
Epistle  is  written  by  an  amanuensis.  Paul  only  certi- 
fies that  the  Epistle  comes  from  himself  and  no  other. 
In  spite  of  his  eyes  he  writes  the  last  words  of  the 
Epistle;  but,  because  of  this  trouble  with  his  eyes,  he 
writes  with  a  large  hand,  just  as  one  does  that  is 
partially  blind. 

Whatever  may  have  been  this  "  thorn  in  the  flesh," 
and  whatever  the  value  of  this  explanation  which  I 
have  given,  it  certainly  is  true  that  the  apostle  was 
laid  aside  there  for  some  time;  that  he  preached  the 
gospel  there;  that  he  was  received  with  the  utmost 
gladness ;  that  he  made  many  converts.  Those  converts 
were  probably  first  of  all  from  among  the  Jews.  The 
nucleus  was  a  Jewish  nucleus;  and  afterward  there 
were  many  converts  from  among  the  Gentiles. 

Paul  visited  this  same  church  two  years  after,  in 
the  year  53  or  54;  but  we  infer  from  certain  passages 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  that  he  Was  received 
with  comparative  coldness  on  his  second  visit;  that  he 
recognized  certain  evil  tendencies  in  the  church,  against 
which  he  was  compelled  earnestly  to  warn  the  Gala- 
tian  Christians.  But  it  was  not  until  he  reached  Eph- 
esus,  and  began  his  three  years'  stay  in  that  city  (which 
lasted  from  the  year  54  to  the  year  57),  and  not  until 
some  time  in  the  year  54,  a  number  of  months  after  he 
had  taken  his  departure  from  Galatia  at  his  second 
visit,  it  was  not  until  then  that  news  came  to  him  that, 
in  spite  of  his  urgent  warnings  and  his  recent  visit,  a 


206  THE   BOOKS   OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

large  number  of  these  Galatian  Christians  had  given 
way  to  Judaizing  teachers  who  had  come  among  them, 
trying  to  persuade  them  that  they  must  be  Jews  first 
in  order  to  become  real  Christians.  The  whole  church, 
indeed,  was  in  danger  of  going  over  to  the  enemy  and 
of  permanently  forsaking  the  Christ.  These  Judaizing 
teachers  claimed  that  they  were  the  special  representa- 
tives of  the  Twelve ;  they  claimed  that  Paul  was  not  a 
real  apostle,  because  he  was  not  one  of  the  original 
Twelve,  and  had  not  had  personal  intercourse  with 
Christ  in  the  flesh;  and  their  opposition  to  him  was 
violent  opposition.  They  claimed  that,  in  order  that 
one  might  be  an  equal  member  in  the  church  of  the 
Messiah,  and  be  a  full  partaker  of  the  benefits  of  the 
Messianic  salvation,  he  must  be  incorporated  with  the 
people  to  whom  the  Messiah  came.  In  other  words, 
they  claimed  that  he  must  be  circumcised,  must  submit 
himself  wholly  to  the  Jewish  law  and  become  a  Jew,  in 
order  that  he  might  be  truly  a  Christian.  And  all  this 
was  an  entire  contradiction  and  direct  disobedience  to 
the  decree  of  the  Apostolic  Council  at  Jerusalem. 

Such  news  as  this  from  Galatia  must  have  stirred 
the  apostle's  heart.  He  felt  that  all  his  work  there 
was  being  undone ;  he  felt  that  those  who  were  engaged 
in  such  preaching,  and  those  who  were  yielding  to  their 
influence  were  casting  behind  them  all  faith  in  Christ, 
and  in  danger  of  losing  their  souls.  So  Paul  writes  to 
the  Galatians  this  Epistle,  which  is  intended  to  check 
these  errors  and  bring  back  his  converts  to  the  truth. 

The  Epistle,  then,  was  written  about  the  year  54, 
perhaps  in  the  early  part  of  the  year  54 ;  written,  there- 
fore,  two  or  three  years  before  the   Epistle  to   the 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    GALATIANS  207 

Corinthians  was  written,  and  even  before  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans  was  written.  And  yet  the  object  of 
the  Epistle  was  to  touch  almost  the  same  general  point 
of  controversy  that  is  treated  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans.  Some  one  has  called  the  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians  a  rough  draft  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 
Another  one  has  said  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians 
is  a  study  of  a  single  figure  which  was  afterward,  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  wrought  out  into  a  group. 
Each  of  these  statements  gives  a  comparatively  cor- 
rect idea  of  the  relation  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians 
to  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 

But  there  is  a  better  illustration  to  be  drawn  from 
the  course  of  a  stream  which  has  its  origin  in  the 
mountains.  You  can  imagine  a  mountain  torrent 
going  down  from  rock  to  rock  and  dashing  its  way 
along  through  ravine  and  gully,  with  tremendous  force 
and  energy,  and  then  at  last  gliding  with  comparative 
calmness  and  quietness  through  the  open  plain.  The 
same  strength  of  doctrine,  the  same  strength  of  tone 
which,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  is  like  the  tre- 
mendous, rushing  mountain  torrent  we  see  making  its 
way  smoothly  through  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  as 
through  the  open  plain.  The  stream  is  the  same,  the 
doctrine  is  the  same;  but  the  manner  of  utterance  in 
the  one  case  is  very  different  from  the  manner  of  utter- 
ance in  the  other.  The  characteristics  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Galatians  are  quite  different  from  the  character- 
istics of  the  other  Epistles  of  Paul. 

In  the  first  place,  there  is  a  oneness  of  purpose  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  that  you  find  in  scarcely 
any  of  the  other  Epistles.     There  is  one  subject  from 


208  THE    BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

the  beginning  to  the  end.  Indeed,  it  differs  exceedingly 
from  the  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  In  that  Epistle 
there  were  at  least  ten  different  practical  matters,  prac- 
tical errors,  which  do  not  seem  to  have  been  con- 
nected by  any  common  basis  of  falsehood;  and  the 
apostle  had  to  treat  them  one  by  one ;  but  here  among 
the  Galatians  there  was  just  one  error  which  he  had  to 
meet,  and  he  devoted  himself  to  that  from  the  begin- 
ning to  the  close. 

Again,  this  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  is  characterized 
by  a  uniform  severity,  such  as  you  find  in  no  other 
Epistle  of  Paul.  It  is  very  different,  for  example, 
from  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians.  In  that  Epistle, 
with  the  exception  of  a  few  slight  cautions,  you  find 
almost  nothing  but  commendation.  He  would  have 
the  love  of  the  Philippians  abound  more  and  more  in 
knowledge  and  in  all  judgment;  and  he  would  repress 
certain  tendencies  to  disunion  and  jealousy  among 
them ;  but  yet,  on  the  whole,  the  Epistle  to  the  Philip- 
pians is  a  commendatory  Epistle ;  there  is  almost  noth- 
ing in  the  church  which  he  would  reprove.  But  this 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians  contains  no  commendation. 
J  There  are  no  salutations  and  there  is  almost  no  praise ; 
there  is  almost  continuous  reproof  from  beginning  to 
end.  And  yet,  notwithstanding  this  comparatively 
uniform  severity  in  this  Epistle,  the  severity  is  mixed 
with  tenderness.  There  are  no  personalities ;  there  are 
no  personal  allusions  in  the  way  of  reproof.  No  names 
of  false  teachers  are  mentioned;  and,  every  now  and 
then,  the  apostle's  reproof  seems  to  break  into  a  tone 
of  fatherly  affection  and  remorse  that  is  exceedingly 
pathetic.     He  says :  "  My  little  children,  of  whom  I 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    GALATIANS  209 

travail  in  birth  again,  until  Christ  be  formed  in  you." 
He  seems  almost  to  speak  from  a  breaking  heart,  and 
the  tears  seem  to  fall  as  he  writes,  so  that,  in  speaking 
of  the  severity  of  the  Epistle,  it  is  evident  that  it  is  the 
severity  of  a  loving  heart.  It  is  all  meant  to  bring 
them  back  to  Christ. 

What  the  effect  of  the  Epistle  was  we  do  not  know. 
Whether  the  Galatians  repented  of  their  errors  and 
gave  up  their  wrong  views  we  do  not  know.  The  last 
we  know  of  them  is  what  is  told  in  the  Epistle  itself. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  find,  in  church  history,  that 
that  portion  of  Asia  Minor  was  in  after  times  a  sort 
of  nursery  and  hotbed  of  heresy.  The  Montanists, 
Ophites,  Manichseans,  Sabellians,  and  Arians  had  their 
strong  advocates  and  defenders  there.  And  yet  the 
Christians  could  not  have  been  entirely  rooted  out, 
because  we  also  have  evidence  that  here,  in  these  several 
churches  of  Galatia,  many  Christians  endured  persecu- 
tion bravely,  and  many  of  these  very  churches  made  a 
brave  fight  in  the  last  struggle  between  Christianity  and 
paganism.  So  we  may  believe  that,  although  some  fell 
away  to  their  destruction.  Christian  faith  did  not 
wholly  die  out,  and  the  apostle's  letter  was  not  abso- 
lutely in  vain. 

With  regard,  now,  to  the  course  of  thought  in  the 
Epistle.  There  is  a  course  of  thought,  and  it  is  very 
marked,  although  the  unity  of  the  treatment  is  singu- 
lar, distinguishing  this  Epistle,  perhaps,  from  all 
the  other  Epistles  of  Paul.  There  is  one  aim  and  object 
in  it  all :  namely,  to  show  that  it  is  not  by  law,  not  by 
works  of  righteousness  that  man  can  do,  that  he  is  to 
be  saved,  but  simply  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ. 
0 


2IO  THE    BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

The  apostle  treats  his  subject  in  three  different  parts, 
and  those  parts  are  so  nearly  coincident  with  double 
chapters  that  they  are  very  easy  to  remember.  There 
is,  first,  the  personal  part — a  personal  narrative ;  there 
is,  secondly,  a  doctrinal  part — he  enforces  his  doctrine ; 
and  then,  thirdly,  there  is  a  hortatory — or  admonitory 
part.  The  personal  part  occupies,  roughly  speaking, 
the  first  two  chapters;  the  doctrinal  part  occupies  the 
next  two  chapters,  and  the  hortatory  part  occupies  the 
last  two  chapters ;  and  since  there  are  only  six  chapters 
in  all,  you  can  see  that  the  Epistle  is  divided  into  three 
parts  of  two  chapters  each.  But  in  this  rough  way  we 
can  remember  it  more  easily.  There  is  just  this  qualifi- 
cation: The  first  part  does  not  end  at  the  end  of  the 
second  chapter,  but  it  does  end  at  the  fourteenth  verse 
of  the  second  chapter.  That  is  all  the  qualification  that 
would  have  to  be  made.  You  must  begin  the  second 
part  then,  the  doctrinal  part,  with  the  second  chapter 
and  fifteenth  verse ;  but,  with  that  single  exception,  this 
rough  division  will  be  a  perfectly  true  one. 

In  the  first  part  of  the  Epistle  the  apostle  gives  a 
personal  narrative,  and  what  is  the  object  of  it?  Why, 
the  object  is  to  vindicate  his  apostolic  authority.  He 
claims  that  he  himself  has  been  called  of  God;  that 
being  called  of  God,  he  has  the  authority  of  God  in  his 
work  (that,  of  course,  was  necessary  in  dealing  with 
the  Galatians) ;  and  that  those  were  false  teachers  who 
were  leading  them  astray.  He  shows  that  he  received 
his  gospel  directly  from  God,  through  Jesus  Christ, 
and  that  he  did  not  receive  it  from  the  Twelve,  the 
original  apostles.  He  did  not  receive  it  from  man  at 
all.    It  came  to  him  by  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ, 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    GALATIAXS  211 

and  he  shows  that  the  Twelve  recognized  this  fact.  He 
went  up  to  Jerusalem  and  the  Twelve  did  not  assume 
any  authority  over  him,  as  if  they  were  his  superiors 
and  had  sources  of  information  which  he  had  not. 
He  shows  how,  of  the  Twelve,  James  and  Peter,  the 
pillars  of  the  church  at  Jerusalem,  gave  him  the  right 
hand  of  fellowship:  recognized  his  perfect  equality  as 
an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ ;  and  bade  him  Godspeed  in 
going  to  the  Gentiles,  as  they  were  to  work  among  the 
Jews.  And  then  Paul  shows  how  he  suffers  nothing  in 
comparison;  that  the  apostle  Peter  at  one  time,  when 
he  was  at  Antioch,  plainly  went  astray,  not  by  preach- 
ing wrongly,  but  by  refusing  to  follow  his  own  teach- 
ings ;  that  he,  Paul,  rebuked  Peter  to  his  face,  and  that 
Peter  had  to  put  up  with  the  rebuke  and  had  to  change 
his  course.  In  this  way  Paul  proves  plainly  that  he 
was  not  inferior  to  Peter,  but  was  on  a  level  with  the 
very  chief  of  the  apostles. 

Having  proved  his  divine  calling  and  apostolic 
authority,  he  can  go  on  to  the  second  portion  of  his 
Epistle,  the  doctrinal  portion.  His  object  is  to  show 
that  man  cannot  be  saved  by  law.  or  obedience  to  law, 
or  works  of  law.  but  must  be  saved  by  simple  faith  in 
Jesus,  by  laying  hold  of  Jesus  Christ  the  only  Saviour 
of  the  sinner.  He  declares  that  the  law  is  not  intended 
to  be  the  way  of  salvation  for  sinners.  It  might  be  a 
way  of  salvation  for  man  if  he  had  not  fallen  and  he 
were  perfectly  able  to  obey  it :  but  just  so  soon  as  man 
has  sinned  he  cannot  come  up  to  the  standard  of  the 
law,  and  he  cannot  be  saved  by  his  own  works.  And 
as  he  cannot  be  saved  by  law  he  must  be  saved  simply 
by  faith.     After  he  has  fallen  into  a  state  of  sin,  the 


212  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

law  is  given  him  simply  to  reveal  to  him  his  sin  and 
lead  him  to  Jesus  Christ. 

An  illustration  which  occurred  to  me  many  years  ago 
will  make  this  very  plain.  The  law  is  our  school- 
master to  lead  us  to  Christ.  Christ  is  the  end  of  the 
law  for  righteousness  to  every  one  who  believeth. 

Some  years  ago  I  went  on  a  sleeping-car  to  Detroit. 
I  awoke  in  the  morning,  after  a  night's  sleep,  and  I 
found  the  car  had  stopped,  and  we  seemed  to  have 
reached  the  end  of  our  journey.  I  arose ;  I  went  out  of 
the  car ;  and  to  my  immense  astonishment  I  found  that 
the  car  was  right  on  the  edge  of  an  abyss.  We  were  on 
a  dock;  our  car  was  on  the  rails,  and  the  rails  went 
right  to  the  edge  of  the  water.  There  they  stopped.  A 
little  movement  might  have  precipitated  us  into  the 
river ;  and  I  wondered  that  we  should  be  in  such  a  posi- 
tion, until  I  saw  a  great  ferryboat  coming  up  to  the 
dock.  On  the  boat  there  were  rails,  and  the  rails  on  the 
boat  matched  the  rails  on  the  dock.  Our  car  was 
pushed  over  on  the  boat,  and  the  boat  and  car  together 
went  across  the  Detroit  River.  In  a  little  while  we 
were  in  Detroit.  That  boat  was  the  end  of  the  track 
for  getting  us  over  the  river;  and  just  so  Christ  is  the 
end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to  every  one  that  be- 
lieveth. Just  as  that  track  on  the  dock  depended  on 
the  boat  as  the  only  way  by  which  it  was  to  be  com- 
pleted, just  so  the  law,  with  its  track  laid  down  for  us 
to  run  on,  points  to  Christ,  its  completion,  as  the  only 
thing  that  can  furnish  the  end  toward  which  it  looks. 
The  law  can  never  save  us,  any  more  than  the  rails  on 
the  dock  could  have  gotten  me  over  the  river  to  Detroit. 
The  law  can  never  save  me,  but  Christ  can.     The 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    GALATIANS  2I3 

law  points  me  to  Christ,  and  the  object  of  the  law  to 
the  sinner  is  simply  to  show  him  that  he  cannot  save 
himself,  and  that  he  must  look  to  Christ  alone  for 
salvation. 

The  last  portion  of  the  Epistle,  the  hortatory  por- 
tion, sums  all  this  up,  and  tells  men  that  if  they  turn 
their  backs  upon  Christ  then  they  turn  their  backs 
upon  salvation;  that  if  they  give  themselves  up  to  the 
law  as  the  way  of  salvation  they  will  be  under  obliga- 
tions to  do  everything  that  the  law  commands;  that 
they  cannot  be  saved  at  all  by  law  without  perfect 
obedience  to  God;  and  that  no  one  can  present  such 
perfect  obedience.  Then  there  are  mentioned  harmony, 
love,  forbearance,  and  patience,  as  duties  of  the  Chris- 
tian, and  with  the  mention  of  these  the  Epistle  is 
closed. 

Is  it  not  a  singular  fact  that  there  was  such  strife 
in  the  early  churches  with  regard  to  doctrine?  I  have 
sometimes  thought  these  strifes  were  permitted  in  the 
early  church  in  order  that  we  might  have  less  strife 
among  us ;  in  order  that  some  questions  might  be  set- 
tled once  and  for  all ;  in  order  that  we  might  be  freed 
from  trouble  and  perplexity  with  regard  to  them. 

Baur,  the  skeptic,  thought  Christianity  itself  origi- 
nated in  this  strife.  Ah,  no ;  there  was  strife  simply  be- 
cause there  was  something  to  strive  over;  there  was  a 
historical  gospel  for  which  Paul  was  fighting;  and  the 
strife  originated  simply  because  there  was  error  coming 
in,  which  threatened  to  reduce  to  a  new  slavery  those 
who  had  found  liberty  in  Christ  Jesus. 

And  so  Luther  found  in  this  Epistle  to  the  Galatians, 
upon  which  he  wrote  his  celebrated  commentary,  his 


214  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

chief  engine  in  the  great  Reformation  in  Germany.  He 
was  so  attached  to  this  Epistle,  it  seemed  to  him  so  to 
express  his  own  heart,  he  felt  so  deeply  the  value  and 
need  of  it,  that  he  called  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians 
''  his  wife."  It  was  something  as  dear  to  him  as  life, 
something  to  which  he  was  bound  for  all  time;  and 
he  made  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  the  source  of  a 
very  large  portion  of  his  texts  and  his  sermons. 

In  every  generation  of  the  Christian  church  there 
have  been  those  who  have  been  prone  to  precisely  the 
errors  that  Paul  is  inveighing  against  in  this  Epistle. 
Ritualism  everywhere  is  a  revival  of  the  evil  which 
Paul  denounces  in  the  Galatians.  Ritualism  in  its  es- 
sence is  the  putting  of  some  work,  or  ordinance,  or 
performance  of  man,  side  by  side  with  the  simple  work 
and  power  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  a  means  of  salvation. 
Ritualism  is  some  external  ceremony,  or  ordinance,  or 
work  that  man  can  do,  as  an  addition  to  the  one  perfect 
sacrifice  and  atonement  of  Jesus  Christ. 

It  is  a  very  curious  fact,  is  it  not,  that  these  two 
Epistles,  the  Galatians  and  the  Romans — these  anti- 
Judaizing  Epistles — were  written  to  precisely  those 
people  whom  history  has  shown  to  have  had  the  great- 
est tendency  to  these  errors?  Now,  the  Romans  was 
written  to  whom?  Why,  to  the  Romans.  And  who 
is  it,  in  history,  that  has  been  the  greatest  exponent 
of  this  Judaistic  tendency,  this  putting  works  side  by 
side  with  Christ  as  a  means  of  salvation?  Why,  it  is 
the  Roman  church.  Paul  seems,  by  prophetic  insight, 
to  have  recognized  where  this  tendency  was  to  be  the 
strongest,  and  so  to  have  written  his  Epistle  against 
this  tendency  to  the  Romans. 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    GALATIANS  21 5 

And,  again,  the  Epistle  that  strives  to  win  men  over 
from  inconstancy  and  fickleness  to  simple  trust  in  Jesus 
Christ  is  written  to  whom?  Why,  it  is  written  to 
Frenchmen.  It  is  written  to  the  Galatians,  for  the 
Galatians  were  the  early  French,  the  Galati,  the  Gauls. 

The  nations  which  have  shown  the  strongest  ten- 
dency to  these  errors  are  just  those  which  Paul  has 
singled  out  to  be  the  object  of  these  Epistles. 

Remember  the  Old  Testament  law  is  outlawed.  Men 
cannot  be  saved  by  works.  Why  seek  the  living  among 
the  dead?  Why  go  back  to  the  sepulcher  in  order  to 
find  our  Christ?  The  Christian  has  a  new  life  in  Christ 
Jesus ;  and  it  is  a  new  life  given  to  us  upon  the  simple 
condition  of  trusting  in  our  risen  Lord.  Faith  in  him, 
and  nothing  but  faith  in  him,  is  the  way  of  life  and 
salvation;  and,  therefore,  what  we  need  most  of  all  is 
to  take  to  our  hearts  this  one  great  lesson,  that  unless 
we  trust  in  Christ  we  can  have  no  peace  inwardly  and 
no  certainty  of  salvation.  If  works  must  mingle  with 
Christ's  methods  as  the  way  of  salvation,  no  one  can 
possibly  have  a  sufficient  and  solid  ground  of  confi- 
dence, because  no  one  can  point  to  works  that  are 
absolutely  perfect. 

Let  us,  then,  once  more  confirm  our  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ,  and  in  the  sole  efficiency  and  sufficiency  of  his 
way  of  mercy  and  salvation,  by  our  study  of  Paul's 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  EPHESIANS 

The  city  of  Ephesus,  where  the  church  was  situated  to 
which  this  letter  was  written,  was  thirty  miles  south  of 
Smyrna,  in  Asia  Minor.  It  was  surrounded  on  three 
sides  by  mountains,  and  upon  the  west  there  stretched 
away  the  blue  waves  of  the  ^gean  Sea.  Ephesus  was 
situated  upon  a  plain  five  miles  long  by  three  miles 
broad.  It  was  in  the  way  of  commerce  from  the  East 
to  the  West,  from  Asia  to  Rome.  It  had  become,  long 
before  the  time  when  our  Epistle  was  written,  a  very 
great  and  rich  and  powerful  city. 

The  remains  of  a  theater  which  was  open  to  the  sky 
have  been  exhumed  in  these  modern  times,  and  the 
stone  seats  of  that  theater  would  hold  an  audience  of 
thirty  thousand  men.  But  the  most  remarkable  dis- 
tinction of  the  city  was  that  which  made  Ephesus  to 
be  Ephesus,  as  much  as  the  university  makes  Oxford 
to  be  Oxford,  the  magnificent  and  vast  temple  that 
was  erected  there  to  the  goddess  Artemis,  or  Diana. 
The  goddess,  half  Greek  and  half  Oriental,  was  repre- 
sented in  the  court  of  the  temple  by  a  strange,  mis- 
shapen idol  of  many  breasts,  indicating  the  nutritive 
and  productive  powers  of  nature.  That  temple  was 
one  of  the  seven  wonders  of  the  world.  It  was  four 
hundred  and  fifty  feet  long  by  two  hundred  and  twenty 
feet  broad.  There  was  a  colonnade  of  Parian  marble, 
each  column  of  which  was  sixty  feet  in  height,  and 
each  of  these  was  the  gift  of  a  prince.  There  were 
216 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    EPHESIANS  2iy 

treasures  of  sculpture  and  painting  there,  such  as 
existed  almost  nowhere  else  in  the  known  world. 
Ephesus  was  the  gathering-place  of  strangers  from 
every  clime.  There  were  all  kinds  of  schools  there. 
It  was  a  place  of  rhetoric  and  philosophy;  and  it  was 
in  this  place  that  the  apostle  Paul  in  one  of  his  early 
journeys  stayed  for  one  single  Sabbath  day. 

On  his  second  missionary  journey,  as  he  made  his 
way  back  to  Jerusalem,  he  made  only  a  brief  stay  with 
Aquila  and  Priscilla.  When  they  begged  him  to  stay 
longer,  he  said  that  he  could  not  at  that  time,  but  if 
God  willed  he  would  come  back.  There  he  left  Aquila 
and  Priscilla,  who  doubtless  did  good  work  among  the 
Gentiles,  and  went  back  to  Jerusalem.  After  three 
months  more  he  returned ;  and  as  his  first  visit  was  in 
the  year  53,  his  second  visit  was  in  the  year  54  of  our 
Lord.  Then  he  made  perhaps  the  longest  stay  that  he 
ever  had  made  up  to  that  time  in  any  single  city  of  the 
Gentiles.  He  was  for  three  months  preaching  in  the 
synagogue;  and  when  it  was  not  possible  for  him  to 
preach  longer  there  without  great  opposition  and  diffi- 
culty, he  betook  himself  to  the  school  of  Tyrannus,  a 
Greek  rhetorician,  and  there  conducted  his  lectures,  or 
preaching  services,  for  two  whole  years.  His  whole 
stay  in  Ephesus,  as  he  tells  us  afterward,  lasted  for 
three  years. 

His  preaching  was  followed  by  very  great  success. 
Multitudes  became  disciples  of  Christ.  He  had  greater 
success  in  Ephesus  than  he  had  had  in  any  other 
heathen  city ;  and  the  work  went  on  until  the  powers  of 
heathenism  around  him  began  to  be  shaken.  Those 
who  had  been  devoted  to  magical  arts  brought  their 


2l8  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

books  of  magic  and  burned  them  publicly,  so  that  the 
value  of  the  books  thus  burned  amounted  to  fifteen 
thousand  pieces  of  silver,  or  between  seven  and  eight 
thousand  dollars,  a  testimony  to  the  reality  of  the  con- 
version of  those  who  sacrificed  so  much  for  the  cause 
of  Christ. 

But  this  very  success  aroused  opposition.  He  tells 
us  afterward,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  of  his 
fight  with  beasts  at  Ephesus.  There  is  but  little  doubt 
that  this  fight  with  beasts  was  metaphorical.  There 
was  no  general  persecution  at  that  time,  and  it  is  not 
possible  that  Paul  could  have  been  thrown  to  the  lions 
in  any  amphitheater.  The  fight  with  beasts  was  evi- 
dently his  conflict  with  the  bitter  and  subtle  enemies 
who  were  constantly  upon  his  track.  The  Jews  lay  in 
wait  for  him.  He  was  opposed  by  the  silversmiths  of 
the  city,  whose  business  was  making  and  selling  silver 
shrines,  or  miniature  temples,  in  the  likeness  of  the 
temple  of  Diana.  Their  trade  was  almost  taken  away, 
and  they  rose  up  in  a  mob  and  riot  and  drove  Paul  from 
the  town.  A  little  while  afterward,  going  to  Miletus, 
the  seaport  of  Ephesus,  he  calls  the  elders  of  the  Ephe- 
sian  church,  and  there  we  have  one  of  the  most  affect- 
ing events  of  Paul's  career.  How  tender  was  the  love 
between  him  and  them,  that  pathetic  scene  bears  wit- 
ness. Paul  gives  them  his  last  instructions.  He  kneels 
with  them  on  the  seashore  and  prays  for  them.  He 
commends  them  to  Jesus  Christ,  their  Saviour.  He 
tells  them  how,  for  a  space  of  three  years,  he  ceased 
not,  day  or  night,  to  warn  men,  preaching  to  them 
publicly  and  teaching  from  house  to  house.  The  evi- 
dences of  affection  between  Paul  and  his  converts  are 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    EPHESIANS  2ig 

very  marked.  He  leaves  them  at  last,  goes  on  his 
final  journey  to  Jerusalem,  and  sees  Ephesus  no  more. 
Paul  apparently  puts  the  church  in  charge  of  Timothy ; 
when  Timothy  is  taken  away,  it  seems  to  have  come 
under  the  direction  of  the  apostle  John,  who  writes  to 
them  one  of  the  letters  addressed  to  the  seven  churches 
in  Asia.  That  is  the  last  we  read  of  the  church  in  Eph- 
esus in  sacred  history. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  was  undoubtedly  writ- 
ten from  Rome,  and  was  written  in  the  year  63,  just 
ten  years  after  Paul's  first  visit  to  Ephesus.  Circum- 
stances had  greatly  changed  with  the  apostle.  The 
time  of  his  public  unhindered  work  was  now  at  an 
end.  He  was  in  a  Roman  prison.  His  imprisonment 
was  not  very  stringent,  it  is  true.  He  had  his  own  hired 
house;  and  yet  he  was  chained,  chained  by  his  right 
wrist  to  a  soldier,  and  this  soldier  by  his  left  wrist  was 
fastened  to  him.  So  every  single  word  that  Paul  wrote 
of  these  Epistles — the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  the 
Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians, 
and  the  Epistle  to  Philemon — every  word  that  was 
written  of  all  that  group  of  Epistles  during  Paul's  first 
Roman  imprisonment,  must  have  been  written  with 
the  heavy  load  of  a  chain  weighing  upon  his  hand. 
Very  naturally  and  afTectingly  he  speaks  of  himself  as 
"  the  prisoner  of  Jesus  Christ."  He  does  not  attribute 
his  imprisonment  to  human  powers  or  enemies;  he 
considers  it  as  ordained  by  the  Saviour;  he  bears  it 
for  him;  he  writes  and  works  ''in  a  chain,"  as  the 
words  in  the  Greek  literally  signify. 

Though  he  was  chained  to  that  soldier  in  his  own 
house  at  Rome,  he  had  opportunity  of  receiving  all 


220  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

who  would  come  to  him.  He  preached  the  gospel  with 
all  the  more  success  because  of  the  difficulties  that  sur- 
rounded him;  and  the  gospel  made  great  headway  in 
the  imperial  city. 

He  had  long  periods  of  meditation;  in  his  confine- 
ment he  meditated  over  the  great  truths  of  the  gospel 
as  never  before;  and  the  Spirit  of  God  unfolded  to 
him  the  inner  significance  of  those  truths  as  never 
before.  As  he  looks  back  to  Ephesus,  where  God  had 
given  him  his  most  wonderful  success  in  the  preaching 
of  the  gospel,  and  to  that  church  that  had  received  him 
with  open  arms,  and  where  God  had  shown  the  greatest 
depths  of  his  power,  his  heart  goes  out  toward  them, 
and  his  desire  is  to  give  them  this  new  blessing  which 
he  himself  has  received.  This  larger  knowledge  of 
the  truth  he  is  bound  to  communicate  to  the  disciples  of 
Christ;  and,  as  he  cannot  publicly  preach  to  them  the 
word,  as  he  is  divided  from  them  by  continents  and 
seas,  he  will  do  what  he  can  do,  he  will  give  to  them 
the  truth  by  letter.  So  we  owe  to  Paul's  imprisonment, 
and  the  larger  unfolding  of  the  truth  of  God  which  was 
made  to  him  in  his  imprisonment,  the  most  wonderful 
of  the  letters  which  were  written  by  Paul. 

This  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  is  chief  among  all  the 
letters  of  Paul  for  the  profoundness  of  its  exhibition  of 
Christ's  truths :  truths  set  forth  here  that  are  set  forth 
nowhere  else  with  the  same  power.  Coleridge  thinks  it 
is  "  the  divinest  composition  of  man  " ;  and  there  can 
be  no  question  that  the  depths  of  God's  mercy  and  love 
were  never  set  forth  in  any  human  composition  as  they 
are  set  forth  here. 

The  object  of  Paul  is  to  show  to  these  converts  who 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    EPHESIANS  221 

have  been  brought  in  from  heathenism,  how  wonderful 
are  the  privileges  that  have  been  conferred  upon  them  in 
the  gospel,  and  how  solemn  are  the  duties  that  devolve 
upon  them  as  the  servants  of  Christ.  As  Paul  treats 
of  the  privileges  of  believers  in  Jesus  Christ  he  is  car- 
ried beyond  himself.  The  first  chapter  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Ephesians,  and  in  fact  the  larger  portion  of  the 
Epistle,  reads  like  a  solemn  hymn. 

It  is  liturgical,  and  at  times  it  is  psalmodic  in  its 
manner.  There  is  a  glow  to  the  thought,  and  there  is 
an  exaltation  to  the  expression,  that  make  it  surpass 
all  the  Epistles  of  Paul  for  sustained  fervor  and  maj- 
esty. It  begins  by  saying,  after  the  salutations: 
"Blessed  be  the. God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  who  chose  us  in  Christ  before  the  foundation  of 
the  world  that  we  should  be  holy  and  without  blame 
before  him  in  love  " ;  and  then  goes  on,  little  by  little, 
until  the  apostle's  great  prayer  is  uttered.  He  prays 
God  that  they  may  have  the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  reve- 
lation in  the  knowledge  of  Christ,  that  they  may  know 
what  is  the  hope  of  their  calling  and  what  the  riches  of 
the  glory  of  their  inheritance  in  the  saints  and  what  the 
exceeding  greatness  of  his  power  in  those  that  believe, 
according  to  the  working  of  that  mighty  power  which 
he  wrought  in  Christ  when  he  raised  him  from  the  dead 
and  set  him  at  his  own  right  hand  in  the  heavenly 
places,  far  above  all  principalities  and  power  and 
might  and  dominion,  and  every  name  that  is  named 
both  in  this  world  and  that  which  is  to  come,  and  hath 
put  all  things  under  his  feet  and  given  him  to  be  the 
head  over  all  things  to  the  church,  which  is  his  body, 
the  fulness  of  him  that  filleth  all  in  all. 


222  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Now,  there  is  a  rhythm  and  a  power  in  these  words 
such  as  you  find  almost  nowhere  else.  EUicott,  the 
commentator,  declares  that  the  genitives  in  this  Epis- 
tle in  the  Greek  tax  the  resources  of  Greek  syntax  to 
the  very  uttermost.  When  interpreting  it  we  require 
all  the  helps  that  syntax  can  possibly  give;  simply 
because  the  apostle,  in  the  greatness  of  his  thought, 
struggles  with  earthly  language.  Language  staggers, 
so  to  speak,  under  the  weight  of  meaning  he  would 
lay  upon  it.  In  this  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  we  have 
one  of  the  greatest  productions  of  inspiration,  an 
Epistle  which  we  can  read  for  the  first  time  and  be 
deeply  impressed  by  it ;  and  yet  it  is  only  the  tenth  or 
twentieth  or  hundredth  reading  that  lets  us  into  the 
secret  of  its  power.  It  is  an  Epistle  that  commends 
itself  not  so  much  to  the  immature  as  to  the  mature 
Christian;  an  Epistle  which  requires  an  inner  spiritual 
life  and  the  broadest  Christian  experience  for  its  under- 
standing. Renan,  the  French  skeptic,  can  condemn  it 
for  its  useless  repetitions  and  verbosity;  but  he  only 
shows  thereby  that  he  utterly  lacks  the  inner  spirit 
that  can  enable  him  to  understand  it.  No  Christian 
can  read  it  without  believing  that  it  was  inspired  of 
God. 

There  is  an  aspect  about  that  Epistle  at  the  begin- 
ning which  differentiates  it  from  every  other  Epistle. 
In  some  of  the  very  earliest  versions,  the  words  "  in 
Ephesus  "  are  lacking,  so  that  it  reads :  ''  Paul,  an 
apostle  of  Jesus  Christ  by  the  will  of  God  to  the  saints 
that  are,"  and  there  it  stops;  the  words  "  in  Ephesus  " 
are  left  out.  It  has  been  a  great  puzzle  to  commenta- 
tors to  know  precisely  what  this  means ;  how  it  is  that 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    EPHESIANS  223 

in  some  of  the  earliest  copies  the  words  ''  in  Ephesus  " 
have  been  lacking;  and  some  have  thought  that  this 
Epistle  was  a  sort  of  circular  letter,  that  it  was  writ- 
ten for  many  churches  and  not  for  one,  and  that  there 
was  a  blank  place  left  there  so  that  it  could  be  filled  in 
for  the  church  at  Laodicea,  for  the  church  in  Ephesus, 
for  the  church  in  Smyrna,  and  so  on.  There  are  cer- 
tain things  in  the  Epistle  which  lend  at  first  a  little 
plausibility  to  that  view. 

For  example,  the  doctrine  of  the  Epistle  is  general. 
It  is  doctrine  that  applies  everywhere,  and  to  all  con- 
ditions of  Christians,  and  to  Christians  of  every  name. 
There  is  not  the  particularizing  that  there  is  in  many 
other  Epistles.  There  is  nothing  like  the  salutations 
to  individuals ;  there  is  nothing  like  the  definite  direc- 
tion of  the  Epistle  to  ethical  ends,  such  as  we  find  in 
Paul's  other  Epistles. 

It  has  therefore  been  urged  by  some  that  the  Epistle 
was  not  written  to  the  church  of  Ephesus  particularly, 
but  that  it  was  written  to  all  the  churches  as  a  sort 
of  general  Epistle,  like  the  general  Epistles  of  Peter 
or  the  general  Epistles  of  John.  I  think,  however,  that 
this  is  a  mistake.  The  testimony  of  the  early  church  is 
perfectly  unanimous  that  this  was  an  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians.  Although,  at  first  sight,  it  does  seem 
strange  that  Paul,  to  this  church  where  he  was  best 
acquainted  and  where  he  must  have  had  the  most 
friends,  should  not  have  mentioned  the  names  of  those 
friends  or  have  given  his  greeting  to  them ;  yet  we  find 
a  parallel  to  this  in  the  letters  to  the  Corinthians.  He 
was  with  the  Corinthians  perhaps  the  next  longest  time. 
He  was  with  the  Corinthians  certainly  two  years,  and 


224  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

there  were  multitudes  of  friends  there.  Yet,  in  his 
letters  to  the  Corinthians,  we  do  not  find  these  per- 
sonal allusions  and  salutations.  May  not  the  reason 
have  been  just  this,  that  he  had  too  many  friends  there ; 
that,  if  he  had  begun  to  express  his  salutations  to  one 
and  another,  there  would  have  been  no  end  to  it?  He 
could  have  drawn  no  line.  There  would  have  been  no 
place  to  stop.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  find  that  those 
Epistles  have  the  most  of  personal  allusions  and  salu- 
tations which  were  written  to  churches  where  Paul 
never  had  made  a  personal  visit.  As,  for  example,  to 
the  church  at  Rome.  We  have  a  great  number  of  per- 
sonal salutations  there,  and  in  the  letter  to  Colosse  we 
have  a  great  number  of  personal  salutations  there ;  but 
at  the  time  that  Paul  wrote  these  two  Epistles  he  had 
not  visited  either  place.  We  must  remember,  besides 
this,  that  the  letter  to  the  Ephesians  was  sent  by  Ty- 
chicus,  a  dearly  beloved  brother,  and  these  personal 
salutations  may  have  been  sent  by  him.  So,  as.  there 
was  a  living  messenger  taking  the  Epistle  to  those  to 
whom  it  was  written,  it  might  have  been  much  easier, 
and  it  might  have  been,  on  many  accounts,  much  better, 
that  these  personal  messages  should  have  been  sent 
orally  by  him. 

Taking  all  things  together,  it  is  better  to  give  credit 
to  the  testimony  and  tradition  of  the  early  church, 
which  is  unanimous  that  the  letter  was  originally  ad- 
dressed to  the  Ephesians,  and  simply  to  say  that  Paul 
intended  the  letter  for  the  benefit  of  the  church  in  Ephe- 
sus  primarily;  but  that  he  also  intended  it  to  be  com- 
municated to  other  churches,  and  therefore  gave  it 
such  a  general  form  that  it  was  capable  of  being  so 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    EPHESIANS  225 

communicated.  He  did  not  limit  it  to  one  particular 
church  even  by  salutations  that  accompanied  it,  so  that 
it  was  just  as  good  in  all  its  parts  for  one  church  as  it 
was  for  another.  Yet  it  was  directed,  first  of  all,  to 
the  church  at  Ephesus  that  he  dearly  loved,  and  he 
trusted  to  their  love  and  care  to  see  that  from  them  it 
should  be  communicated  to  others. 

Now,  the  subject  of  this  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  is 
perhaps  the  greatest  subject  that  can  engage  the  mind 
of  man.  It  is  this,  "  Christ,  the  head  over  all  things  to 
his  church."  The  letter  to  the  Ephesians  and  the  letter 
to  the  Colossians  have  been  called  twin  Epistles;  and 
it  will  be  very  useful  to  carry  in  mind  the  relation  be- 
tween the  two.  They  treat  different  aspects  of  the 
same  great  truth,  viz.,  the  relation  of  the  world  to 
Christ.  The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  treats  of  Christ 
as  the  head  over  all  things  to  the  church.  The  Epistle 
to  the  Colossians  treats  of  Christ,  the  head  over  all 
things  to  the  universe.  And  so  the  twin  Epistles  are 
supplementary  to  each  other.  We  need  the  two  to 
present  this  truth  in  its  fulness  and  roundness. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  then  sets  forth  the 
greatness  of  Christ;  and  the  apostle  does  this  by  divi- 
ding his  statement,  as  he  commonly  does,  into  a  doctri- 
nal part  and  into  a  practical  part,  and  here  the  division 
is  in  the  middle  of  the  Epistle.  There  are  six  chapters ; 
the  first  three  of  these  have  to  do  with  the  doctrinal 
part,  and  the  last  three  have  to  do  with  the  practical 
part.  In  the  first  three  he  would  set  forth  the  infi- 
nite privileges  that  belong  to  the  believer  in  Christ,  to 
him  who  has  Christ  for  his  living  head,  to  him  who  is  a 
part  of  this  vast  temple  of  God  which  Christ  is  erecting 
p 


22(y  THE   BOOKS   OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

in  the  ages.  And  then  the  last  three  chapters,  the 
practical  part,  urge  Christians  to  walk  worthily  of  this 
high  calling  which  they  have  received;  in  other 
words,  set  forth  the  duties  which  belong  to  those  who 
have  been  so  privileged.  Privilege  then  comes  first; 
duty  comes  last;  and  they  receive  a  perfectly  equal 
treatment.  Three  chapters  are  given  to  the  one,  and 
three  chapters  are  given  to  the  other. 

The  first  part  of  the  Epistle,  the  doctrinal  part,  sets 
forth  Christ,  the  head  over  all  things  to  the  church,  in 
three  special  ways.  The  church  is  first  said  to  be 
chosen  in  Christ,  and  the  first  chapter  is  taken  up  with 
God's  everlasting  choice  of  those  who  are  united 
to  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  not  a  choice  that  has  taken  place 
for  the  first  time  during  our  earthly  life.  As  the  ardent 
lover  said  once,  in  a  novel,  to  the  lady  whom  he  was 
seeking  to  win :  "  Why,  dear,  I  have  loved  you  ever 
since  I  set  my  eyes  upon  you  as  a  child !  "  God  says 
to  us  something  better  than  that.  He  says,  "■  I  have 
loved  you  with  an  everlasting  love."  We  are  said  to 
be  chosen  in  Christ  before  the  foundation  of  the  world. 
In  the  depths  of  eternity  past  God  fastened  his  eyes 
upon  us,  and  chose  us  in  Christ,  that  we  should  be 
holy  and  without  blame  before  him.  It  is  an  eternal 
choice  of  God  that  has  brought  us  into  union  with 
Christ  and  has  made  us  Christians.  The  first  chapter, 
then,  is  taken  up  with  the  fact  that  the  church  is  chosen 
in  Christ  from  the  eternity  past. 

The  second  chapter  shows  that  the  church  is  re- 
deemed in  Christ,  and  there  the  apostle  refers  them  to 
their  past  state  as  "  alienated  from  the  commonwealth 
of  Israel  and  strangers  from  the  covenants  of  promise. 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   EPHESlANS  22^ 

having  no  hope  and  without  God  in  the  world."  Then 
he  tells  them  how,  in  Christ,  they  have  been  redeemed ; 
how  the  death  of  Christ  has  become,  as  it  were,  their 
death;  how  they  have  been  raised  from  the  death  of 
trespasses  and  sins,  and  have  been  built  into  a  living 
temple,  in  which  God  dwells  by  the  Spirit,  an  allusion 
perhaps  to  that  magnificent  temple  of  Diana  of  which 
I  spoke.  The  apostle  leads  their  imagination  to  a  far 
greater  and  nobler  spiritual  temple,  in  which  each 
Christian  is  a  living  stone  laid  by  God  and  inhabited  by 
the  Spirit. 

As  we  have  in  the  first  chapter  the  church  chosen  in 
Christ,  and  in  the  second  chapter  the  church  redeemed 
in  Christ,  so  we  have  in  the  third  chapter  the  church 
provided  for  by  Christ,  endowed  with  the  gift  of  the 
apostleship,  gifted  with  religious  instruction,  and  so 
disciplined  and  prepared  for  the  final  heavenly  state. 
All  are  urged  to  test  this  wonderful  power  and  grace 
of  God,  "  the  love  of  Christ  which  passeth  knowledge, 
that  ye  may  be  filled  unto  all  the  fulness  of  God."  So 
we  have  Christ  head  over  all  things  to  the  church,  head 
over  all  things  even  in  eternity  past,  head  over  the 
church  in  his  redeeming  work,  head  over  the  church  by 
providing  it  with  its  leadership  and  its  various  gifts. 

Upon  this  doctrinal  basis  the.  apostle  builds  the 
subsequent  hortatory  portion  of  the  Epistle ;  and  so  we 
have  in  the  last  three  chapters  an  account  of  the 
various  gifts  of  grace  that  are  bestowed  upon  Chris- 
tians; we  have  the  various  orders  and  offices  of  the 
ministry;  and  then  we  have  general  Christian  duties, 
and  especially  the  duty  of  having  in  everything  the 
right  spirit.     In  other  words,  the  internal  graces  of 


228  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

the  Christian  character  are  unfolded ;  and  we  are  shown 
how,  now  that  we  are  Christians  and  in  Christ,  it  is 
not  the  fruits  of  our  old  evil  nature  that  we  are  to  bring 
forth,  but  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit — love,  joy,  peace, 
longsuffering,  gentleness,  goodness,  faith,  meekness, 
and  temperance;  and  we  are  urged,  if  we  have  fallen 
away  at  all,  to  awake,  to  arise,  and  Christ  shall  give  us 
light.  So  we  are  exhorted  to  live  in  conformity  with 
the  calling  which  we  have  received  from  Christ,  our 
Lord. 

Having  detailed  these  general  Christian  virtues, 
which  we  are  exhorted  to  bring  forth,  Paul  goes  on  to 
special  duties — the  duty,  for  example,  which  the  wife 
owes  to  the  husband.  There  the  duty  is  enforced  by 
the  mention  of  Christ's  union  with  the  church;  and 
the  relation  between  the  believer  and  Christ  is  illus- 
trated by  the  marriage  relation  between  the  wife  and 
husband.  Children  are  exhorted  to  be  obedient  to  their 
parents,  and  servants  (or  slaves,  as  the  word  might  be 
translated)  are  exhorted  to  be  obedient  to  their  earthly 
master,  seeing  in  the  will  of  their  earthly  master  the 
will  of  their  greater  master,  Jesus  Christ,  who  will  give 
the  reward  at  the  last,  even  though  earthly  masters 
fail  to  reward.  And  then,  last  of  all,  after  the  exhibi- 
tion of  these  Christian  duties,  there  comes  a  representa- 
tion of  the  conflict  between  good  and  evil  in  the  world, 
in  which  we  are  to  participate  and  to  stand  for  God. 
It  is  told  us  that  our  warfare  is  not  with  flesh  and  blood, 
but  with  principalities  and  powers,  the  spiritual  rulers 
of  this  world  of  darkness.  In  other  words,  a  host  of 
evil  Influences  are  arrayed  against  us;  and  we  are  to 
put  on  the  whole  armor  of  God  that  we  may  not  be  put 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE   EPHESIANS  229 

to  shame,  but  that  we  may  stand  until  the  very  last; 
and,  while  the  conflict  is  set  before  us,  at  the  same  time 
we  are  assured  that,  in  this  Christ  who  is  our  head, 
there  is  given  to  us  a  complete  and  perfect  victory.  So 
we  have  the  headship  of  Jesus  Christ  over  all  things  to 
the  church  carried  out,  first  doctrinally,  in  such  a  way 
that  we  see  the  everlasting  character  of  it;  and  then 
practically,  in  the  effect  which  these  wonderful  privi- 
leges of  the  Christian  ought  to  have  upon  his  righteous- 
ness and  holiness  of  life.  The  church  is  something 
larger  and  more  spiritual  than  a  local  body  of  believers 
or  an  outward  organization.  This  is  the  most  churchly 
Epistle  in  the  New  Testament;  and  yet,  in  this  most 
churchly  Epistle,  we  have  least  with  regard  to  ritual, 
with  regard  to  discipline,  with  regard  to  details.  The 
ideal  character  of  the  church,  the  universal  kingdom  of 
God,  so  fills  the  apostle's  mind  as  to  swamp,  as  it  were, 
all  thought  of  the  local  and  the  individual.  It  is  the 
essential  relation  of  the  believer  to  his  Lord,  that  which 
constitutes  a  Christian  and  which  makes  possible  a 
church,  that  he  has  mainly  in  mind.  The  matter  of  or- 
dinances and  of  discipline  he  will  attend  to  at  other 
times.  Now  he  busies  himself  only  with  this  vast  con- 
ception of  the  church  as  a  whole,  the  spiritual  body  of 
Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord. 

But  it  is  very  interesting  to  observe  too,  that  while 
the  apostle  speaks  of  all  sorts  of  duties  that  belong  to 
the  Christian,  there  is  not  one  that  he  does  not  enforce 
by  the  highest  motive.  There  is  no  appeal  to  any 
sordid  or  interested  motive.  There  is  no  urging  of 
performances  of  Christian  duty  simply  for  the  happi- 
ness that  will  come  to  us,  or  for  the  sake  of  the  good 


230  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

even  of  those  around  us;  but  our  thoughts  are  con- 
tinually lifted  up  to  Christ.  For  Christ's  sake  we  are 
to  do  all.  We  are  not  to  lie  one  to  another,  and  why  ? 
Because,  in  Christ,  we  are  members  one  of  another. 
It  is  as  absurd  for  us  to  be  telling  lies  one  to  another, 
as  it  would  be  for  us  to  attempt  to  deceive  ourselves. 
And  then  we  must  not  steal  from  one  another.  That 
is  forbidden,  and  why  ?  Simply  in  order  that  we  may 
do  good  to  the  body  of  Christ,  that  we  may  have  that 
which  we  may  give  to  another.  We  are  to  work  and 
to  win,  in  order  that  we  may  be  helpers  to  others  who 
are  members  of  the  same  body  with  us. 

And  so  when  we  come  to  the  more  spiritual  graces, 
Paul  urges  us  to  show  faith  and  all  the  other  Chris- 
tian graces,  simply  because  they  are  the  natural  ex- 
pression of  the  Spirit  of  Christ  within.  The  words 
"  in  Christ "  appear  in  this  Epistle  more  frequently 
perhaps  than  they  do  in  any  other  Epistle  of  Paul,  and 
you  cannot  read  the  Epistle  intelligently  without  un- 
derstanding their  meaning.  They  constitute  the  key 
to  Paul's  Epistles  in  general,  but  they  especially  con- 
stitute the  key  to  this  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  "  In 
Christ  "  means  in  living  union  with  Chrfst,  the  per- 
sonal, risen,  living  Saviour,  and  Paul  sees  in  Christ 
God  revealed.  He  takes  literally  those  words  of  Christ 
himself,  "  He  that  hath  seen  me,  hath  seen  the  Father." 

If  you  want  to  know  what  God  is,  look  at  Christ. 
There  you  have  the  very  manifestation  of  God  in 
human  form;  and,  therefore,  we  have  in  Christ  the 
ideal  of  our  human  life.  We  are  to  be  like  Christ. 
Whatever  there  is  in  Christ  is  to  be  reproduced  in  us. 
Whatever  Christ  did,  he  did  not  for  himself  alone,  but 


THE    EPISTLE   TO    THE    EPHESIANS  23 1 

did  it  for  us  also.  Therefore,  we  are  said  to  have  died 
together  with  Christ ;  we  are  said  to  have  been  buried 
together  with  Christ;  and  we  are  said  to  be  raised  to- 
gether with  Christ  and  to  be  seated  with  Christ  in 
heavenly  places ;  to  have  suffered  together  with  Christ ; 
and  to  be  glorified  together  with  Christ.  In  other 
words,  the  apostle  sees  in  Christ  the  germ  of  the 
redeemed  humanity  that  God  is  to  bring  back  to  him- 
self. We  are  in  Christ,  and  we  are  so  united  to  Christ 
that  Christ's  life  is  in  us.  Whatever  Christ  is,  what- 
ever Christ  has,  is  made  over  to  our  account,  so  that 
all  things  are  ours.  Whether  life  or  death,  things 
present  or  things  to  come,  all  things  are  ours,  because 
we  are  Christ's  and  Christ  is  God's.  The  great  thought 
of  the  Epistle  is  Christ,  the  head  over  all  things  to  the 
church,  God  manifesting  himself  in  humanity,  and  lift- 
ing us  up  by  union  with  Christ  into  his  own  great  life, 
so  that  all  blessings  are  ours  in  him. 

How  vast  the  conception  of  the  Epistle!  How  full 
of  comfort  and  strength  to  the  Christian !  Let  us  study 
it  faithfully,  and  let  us  recognize  the  fact  that  all  God's 
exceedingly  great  and  precious  promises  are  ours. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  PHILIPPIANS 

On  the  northernmost  shore  of  the  Greek  Archipelago, 
as  it  is  now  called,  or  of  the  ^gean  Sea,  as  it  used  to 
be  called,  was  the  city  of  Philippi.  If  you  look  upon 
the  map  you  will  see  that  northward  from  this  northern 
shore  of  the  Greek  Archipelago  there  stretches  a  great 
rocky  barrier,  which  separates  now,  as  it  did  then,  the 
Turkish  peninsula  from  the  Greek  peninsula,  and  which 
separates  the  region  of  the  East  from  the  region  of 
the  West. 

Here,  at  Philippi,  that  great  rocky  barrier,  as  it 
approaches  the  sea,  was  depressed,  and  there  was  a 
narrow  plain;  upon  that  plain,  at  a  distance  of  about 
ten  miles  from  the  sea,  Philippi  was  situated.  Certain 
gold  mines  in  the  neighborhood  and  certain  mineral 
springs  had  early  led  to  the  settlement  of  the  place; 
but  it  was  chiefly  the  fact  that  this  depression  in  the 
hills,  between  the  mountains  and  the  sea,  constituted 
a  sort  of  gateway  from  the  East  to  the  West  that  led 
Philip  of  Macedon  to  fortify  the  place  about  three  cen- 
turies and  a  half  before  Christ,  to  build  a  city  there, 
and  to  distinguish  that  city  by  giving  it  his  name.  The 
city  of  Philippi,  therefore,  was  so  called  because  it  was 
founded  by  Philip  of  Macedon,  the  father  of  Alexander 
the  Great. 

The  great  importance  of  the  place  as  a  sort  of 
strategic  key  led,  in  the  year  42  before  Christ,  to  the 
world-renowned  battle  of  Philippi,  one  of  the  world's 
232 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    PHILIPPIANS  233 

decisive  battles.  Augustus  and  Antony  on  the  one  side, 
and  Brutus  and  Cassius  on  the  other,  fought  there  for 
the  empire  of  the  world;  and  you  know  how  Shake- 
speare has  commemorated  that  struggle  in  his  play 
of  Julius  Caesar. 

The  conqueror  in  that  battle,  Augustus,  led  by  the 
same  reasons  which  I  have  intimated  already,  made 
Philippi  a  Roman  colony;  and  by  a  Roman  colony  I 
mean  a  city  that  is  settled  by  Romans  who  have  been 
brought  from  Italy,  who  have  brought  with  them  their 
municipal  organization,  who  are  governed  by  a  senate 
of  their  own,  and  who  have  all  the  rights  and  privileges 
of  Roman  citizens.  This  Philippi  is  a  Roman  city,  on 
the  very  confines  of  the  Roman  world ;  that  is,  on  the 
very  confines  of  that  world  where  the  Latin  language 
is  spoken  and  taught. 

In  the  little  narrative  with  regard  to  Philippi  which 
is  preserved  to  us  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  all  these 
various  classes  of  population  are  more  or  less  repre- 
sented. There,  first,  is  the  original  barbarian  element ; 
secondly,  there  is  the  Greek  element;  thirdly,  the 
Roman  element;  and  finally,  the  Jew.  We  have  here 
at  Philippi  a  sort  of  strategic  point  for  the  gospel,  as 
well  as  for  the  empire  of  the  world ;  for  here  we  have 
a  confluence  of  Eastern  and  Western  life,  a  strangely 
mixed  population,  and  a  remarkable  regard  paid  to 
the  rights  and  dignities  of  Roman  citizenship.  Here  it 
was  that  Christianity  first  came  in  contact  with  Roman 
civilization.  Here  was  fought  for  Christianity  a  bat- 
tle more  important  than  that  battle  of  Philippi,  in 
which  Augustus  and  Brutus  fought  for  the  mastery  of 
the  world.    You  remember  that  the  apostle  Paul,  on  his 


234  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

second  missionary  journey,  desired  very  much  to  com- 
plete what  he  must  have  thought  of  as  the  evangeHza- 
tion  of  Asia  Minor.  There  were  other  regions  of 
Asia  Minor  which  he  yet  desired  to  visit.  He  wanted 
to  enter  Bithynia;  but  you  remember  that  the  sacred 
writer  says,  "  the  Spirit  suffered  him  not."  He  was 
driven,  as  it  were,  by  his  own  inner  impulse,  and  by 
the  direction  of  divine  Providence,  to  the  northwestern 
portion  of  Asia  Minor,  until  he  came  to  Troas,  the 
point  from  which  he  would  naturally,  if  at  all,  pass 
over  into  Europe.  I  can  imagine  that  the  prospect  of 
passing  over  into  Europe  and  into  an  entirely  differ- 
ent civilization  from  that  to  which  he  had  been  accus- 
tomed caused  him  a  great  deal  of  trepidation.  It 
was  only  the  voice  of  the  man  of  Macedonia,  ''  Come 
over  to  Macedonia,  and  help  us,"  that  finally  deter- 
mined him  to  take  his  way  to  Europe. 

Here,  in  Philippi,  was  the  first  conflict  between 
Christianity  and  European  paganism;  and  upon  the 
decision  of  that  conflict  great  things  depended  for 
Christianity  in  the  future. 

In  every  city  he  had  visited  heretofore,  Paul  had 
always  gone  first  to  the  synagogue  of  the  Jews;  but 
here,  in  Philippi,  there  was  no  synagogue  of  the  Jews. 
There  were  Jewish  people  there,  but  they  were  very 
few.  It  was  a  Roman  population  instead  of  a  Jewish 
population.  Since  there  was  no  synagogue,  the  Jews 
who  were  there,  not  having  any  regular  place  of  meet- 
ing in  the  city,  conducted  divine  worship  outside,  in  a 
secluded  place,  in  the  open  air,  by  the  side  of  that 
rushing  river  upon  which  the  city  was  built.  Those 
who  visited  this  place  of  prayer  were  not  Jewish  men ; 


THE   EPISTLE    TO    THE    PHILIPPIANS  235 

they  were  Jewish  women,  and  apparently  these  women 
were  themselves  few  in  number. 

But  Paul  went  out  there  upon  the  Sabbath  day ;  and 
as  he  spoke  to  them  with  regard  to  the  gospel  of 
Christ  and  the  fulfilment  of  the  promises  of  the  Mes- 
siah in  the  Old  Testament,  the  Lord  opened  the  heart 
of  one  of  them,  Lydia  by  name,  a  seller  of  purple,  of 
the  city  of  Thyatira,  in  Asia  Minor,  so  that  she  at- 
tended to  the  things  that  were  spoken.  She  might  have 
listened  and  gone  away,  and  thought  no  more  of  it,  if 
the  Lord  had  not  imparted  to  her  a  new  bent  of  mind, 
a  new  disposition  to  receive  the  truth.  Receiving  the 
truth,  she  became  Paul's  first  disciple;  and  the  fruits 
of  her  discipleship  were  new  Christian  hospitality.  She 
received  Paul  and  his  fellow  workers — for  I  suppose, 
at  this  time,  Timothy,  Silas,  and  Luke  also  were  with 
him — received  all  four  of  them  into  her  house,  and 
her  house  became  a  rendezvous  and  a  starting-point  for 
missionary  effort  in  the  city.  Paul  remained  there 
many  days,  it  is  said.  Probably  this  means  a  number 
of  weeks,  or  even  months.  He  preached  the  gospel 
until  at  last  attention  began  to  be  attracted  to  him. 
People  began  to  know  who  he  was;  and  now  we  find 
that  a  Greek  divining  girl,  a  girl  who  was  possessed  by 
an  evil  spirit,  and  pretended  to  prophesy,  a  sort  of 
Greek  fortune-teller  under  the  influence  of  the  satanic 
power,  followed  Paul  and  Silas  as  they  went  through 
the  street,  half  mocking,  perhaps,  and  yet  perhaps  half 
inclined  seriously  to  recognize  the  power  that  was  in 
them.  The  Greek  girl  cried,  as  she  ran :  "  These  men 
are  the  servants  of  the  most  high  God,  who  came  to 
teach  us  the  way  of  salvation."     That  continued  day 


236  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

after  day  until,  at  last,  Paul  turned  and  commanded 
the  evil  spirit  to  come  out  of  her,  and  the  evil  spirit 
did  come  out.  The  result  was  that  the  masters  of  this 
slave  girl,  finding  that  the  hope  of  their  gains  was  gone, 
and  that  they  could  no  longer  use  her  for  their  pur- 
pose, fell  upon  Paul  and  Silas,  roused  a  mob  against 
them,  and  brought  them  before  the  magistrates.  The 
magistrates  ordered  them  to  be  scourged,  put  them  in 
prison,  confined  them  in  the  innermost  dungeon,  and 
made  their  feet  fast  in  the  stocks.  So  the  magistrates 
seemed  to  side  with  this  riotous  element  in  the  Roman 
population. 

It  has  been  questioned  by  some  why  Paul,  who  was  a 
Roman  citizen  and  who  had  a  right  to  be  absolved  from 
all  such  punishments  as  scourging,  did  not  urge  his 
rights  as  a  Roman  before  the  scourging  took  place; 
and  some  have  thought  that  the  reason  was  just  this, 
that  this  was  his  first  visit  to  a  purely  Roman  city. 
Paul,  it  is  said,  was  in  a  place  where  Latin  was  the 
prevailing  language;  it  was  impossible  for  him,  under 
the  circumstances,  to  make  himself  known,  and  to  get 
the  hearing  of  the  magistrates;  it  was  only  after  the 
thing  was  really  done  that  he  was  enabled  to  make  an 
effective  protest.  However  that  may  be,  we  know  that 
it  was  an  occasion  of  the  mighty  exercise  of  divine 
power ;  in  the  middle  of  the  night  there  was  an  earth- 
quake; the  doors  of  the  prison  swung  open,  and  Paul 
and  Silas  were  permitted  to  go  free.  The  jailer  came 
with  fear  and  trembling,  fell  down  before  Paul  and 
Silas,  and  asked  what  he  should  do  to  be  saved.  The 
appearance  of  these  men,  whose  backs  had  been  lacer- 
ated by  the  Roman  scourge,  still  rejoicing  and  singing 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    PHILIPPIANS  237 

praises  to  God  at  night,  was  something  so  strange  as 
to  attract  his  wonder.  Conviction  of  sin  had  already 
been  awakened  in  his  heart ;  he  longed  to  know  the  God 
whom  these  men  preached ;  and  he  earnestly  asked  how 
he  might  find  the  way  of  salvation.  The  answer  was 
that  he  was  simply  to  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  he  should  be  saved ;  and,  believing  right  then  and 
there,  he  received  baptism,  and  was  added  to  the  num- 
ber of  the  Christian  church. 

This  miracle  seems  to  have  worked  in  behalf  of  the 
truth,  and  to  have  made  a  deep  impression  through 
the  town.  By  declaring  himself  a  Roman  citizen 
Paul  secured  release,  and  so  intimidated  the  rulers  of 
the  city  that  they  were  anxious  to  get  rid  of  him  in 
order  that  there  might  be  no  report  of  their  proceedings 
carried  to  Rome.  More  than  this,  Paul  and  Silas  seem 
to  have  been  so  helped  in  their  work  that  a  large  num- 
ber was  added  to  the  church.  When  Paul  leaves 
Philippi  we  find  him  speaking  of  "  the  brethren," 
though  the  church  began  with  only  a  few  women — 
yes,  with  only  one.  The  church  of  Jesus  Christ  had 
been  founded  in  that  place,  and  that  church  was  one 
of  the  most  beautiful  illustrations  of  Christian  love 
and  joy  and  confidence  and  successful  labor  that  we 
read  of  in  all  the  annals  of  the  New  Testament. 

We  find  that  Luke,  who,  up  to  this  time,  for  quite 
a  little  space  has  used  the  word  "  we  "  of  himself,  the 
apostle,  and  his  companions,  now  ceases  to  use  the 
word  **  we "  in  describing  Paul's  journeyings,  and 
seems  to  intimate  that  he  himself,  the  writer,  was  left 
in  Philippi.  It  is  only  when  Paul  goes  back  again  to 
this  same  Philippi — a  long  time  afterward — that  Luke 


^3^  THE   BOOKS   OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT 

begins  again  to  use  the  word  "  we,"  and  goes  with  Paul 
afterward  in  his  journeyings.  The  inference  has  been 
that  Luke  was  left  in  Philippi  by  Paul,  to  take  charge 
of  the  church  until  Paul  returned  on  his  third  mission- 
ary journey,  after  which  he  followed  Paul  to  Rome.  If 
this  be  the  case,  it  shows  how  greatly  blessed,  efficient, 
and  discreet  pastoral  care  may  be.  In  this  church  the 
new  converts  from  among  the  heathen  passed  for  a 
number  of  years  under  the  instruction  and  supervision 
of  Luke.  This  furnishes  us  with  some  explanation  of 
their  faithfulness,  the  uniformity  of  their  Christian 
character,  and  the  depth  of  their  love  and  joy.  Ter- 
tullian  says  that  this  church  was  one  of  the  few  that 
were  eminent  for  preserving  autograph  apostolic  let- 
ters, by  which  I  suppose  that  this  letter  to  the  Philip- 
pians  was  kept  among  them  as  a  sacred  treasure. 

The  church  at  Philippi  seems  to  have  been  char- 
acterized by  some  very  remarkable  qualities.  Paul,  in 
writing  his  letter  to  them,  has  almost  nothing  to  blame. 
It  is  the  one  letter  of  all  the  apostolic  letters  in  which 
you  will  find  almost  no  censure  at  all.  There  is  a  great 
deal  of  commendation.  The  apostle  can  commend, 
first  of  all,  their  faithfulness  and  their  devotion  in  the 
midst  of  persecution.  The  persecution  which  vented 
itself  upon  the  apostle  seems  to  have  been  continued  in 
the  case  of  the  disciples  whom  the  apostle  won ;  and  yet, 
in  spite  of  that  persecution,  the  church  at  Philippi  re- 
mained firm ;  firm  in  its  faith,  firm  in  its  love.  Though 
they  were  poor,  yet  they  seem  to  have  contributed  very 
largely,  in  proportion  to  their  means,  to  all  manner  of 
Christian  enterprises;  and  they  were  especially  char- 
acterized  by   affection    and   devotion   to   the    apostle 


THE   EPISTLE   TO    THE    PHILIPPIANS  239 

himself.  You  know  that  the  apostle  did  not  wish  to  lay 
upon  the  new  church  that  he  founded  the  burden  of 
his  support.  He  preferred  to  earn  his  own  living  by 
his  trade  of  tent-making;  and  yet,  occasionally,  it  was 
very  desirable  that  he  should  have  the  time  to  himself 
for  Christian  labor.  It  was  the  contributions  of  this 
church  at  Philippi  which  enabled  him  to  take  his  time 
for  Christian  work.  When  he  came  to  be  imprisoned 
at  Rome,  there  was  a  great  deal  in  the  way  of  comfort 
that  might  be  purchased  for  him  by  the  pecuniary  as- 
sistance that  came  to  him  from  others.  It  was  this 
church  at  Philippi  that  again  and  again,  as  he  declares, 
ministered  to  his  necessities.  There  is  no  proof  of 
confidence  that  a  high-minded  man  can  show  like  this 
of  being  willing  to  take  pecuniary  assistance  from 
another.  Paul  would  never  have  taken  this  assistance 
from  the  Philippian  church  if  there  had  not  been  a  bond 
of  warm  affection  and  confidence  existing  between  him 
and  them.  These  were  the  graces  of  the  Philippian 
church. 

There  were  certain  things  against  which  the  apostle 
needed  to  warn  them ;  and  yet  he  did  not  censure  them 
for  special  faults.  He  rather  cautioned  them  against 
things  to  which  they  might  possibly  be  exposed.  There 
was,  for  example,  the  jealousy  which  might  possibly 
arise  between  different  church-members  engaged  in 
the  same  sort  of  work.  "  I  beseech  Euodias  and  be- 
seech Syntyche,  that  they  be  of  the  same  mind."  They 
were  tw^o  women  who  perhaps  had  a  little  jealousy  of 
one  another  in  their  Christian  work.  The  apostle 
cautions  them  to  keep  in  mind  the  common  cause  for 
which  they  labor,  and  always  to  work  together.    That 


240  THE    BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

is  perhaps  as  near  an  approach  to  censure  as  we  find 
in  the  Epistle,  and  it  is  very  gentle. 

There  is  a  little  danger  that  Judaizing  teachers  may 
persuade  them  that  they  can  trust  something  else  than 
the  one  work  and  righteousness  of  Jesus  Christ;  and 
so  the  apostle  gives  them,  in  the  form  of  his  own  ex- 
perience, the  instruction  that  we  are  not  saved  by  any 
works  of  righteousness  that  we  have  done.  Salvation 
is  of  the  Lord.  Paul  seeks  the  righteousness  of  Christ, 
and  to  be  clothed  only  with  that.  That  is  his  only 
hope.  He  sees  some  in  the  Philippian  church  who  are 
not  faithful  in  their  Christian  life.  There  are  pro- 
fessors of  Christianity  who  do  not  show  forth  the 
power  of  religion.  "  There  are  some,  I  tell  you  even 
weeping,  that  are  enemies  to  the  cross  of  Christ,  whose 
end  is  destruction,  who  mind  earthly  things."  There 
were  a  few  such  at  Philippi. 

It  is  wonderful  that  there  were  not  more  things  in 
this  Philippian  church  against  which  he  could  inveigh ; 
but  we  find  nothing  in  the  shape  of  denunciation.  All 
the  apostle  says,  by  way  of  qualification  of  his  com- 
mendation, is  rather  a  cautioning  and  warning  against 
possible  future  evil,  than  a  declaration  that  these  evils 
were  marked  in  the  Philippian  church. 

And  now  as  to  the  circumstances  under  which  the 
Epistle  to  the  Philippians  was  written.  You  remember 
that  the  apostle  had  now  become  a  prisoner  at  Rome. 
I  suppose  that  this  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  was  writ- 
ten later  than  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  Ephesians, 
Colossians,  and  Philemon  seem  to  be  bound  together 
in  a  group.  The  Philippians  seems  to  have  been  writ- 
ten somewhat  later  than  those  three,  but  during  this 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    PHILIPPIANS  24I 

same  Roman  imprisonment.  It  must  have  been  in  the 
last  year  at  least  of  that  Roman  imprisonment,  because, 
in  the  Philippians,  Paul  speaks  of  the  church  in  Rome 
as  having  acquired  some  size.  The  number  of  converts 
was  large.  That  could  hardly  have  been  said  at  the 
beginning  of  his  imprisonment.  Then,  again,  his  as- 
sociates have  left  him.  In  the  Philippians  he  is  com- 
paratively alone.  In  the  early  part  of  that  imprison- 
ment his  associates  were  with  him.  There  has  been 
time  for  a  number  of  journeys  between  Rome  and 
Philippi. 

Epaphroditus,  during  the  imprisonment  of  the  apos- 
tle at  Rome,  was  sent  to  Paul  with  a  contribution  for 
his  necessities.  Epaphroditus  had  time  to  go  to  Rome 
and  communicate  to  the  apostle  the  gifts  of  the  Philip- 
pian  church.  Epaphroditus  was  taken  sick  while  he 
was  ministering  to  Paul;  the  news  of  Epaphroditus' 
sickness  had  time  to  reach  the  Philippians ;  and  Epaph- 
roditus had  time  to  hear  again  from  Philippi  of  the 
care  and  anxiety  of  the  church  on  his  behalf. 

Such  journeys  as  these,  together  with  the  sickness 
of  Epaphroditus  and  his  recovery,  the  writing  of  the 
letter  and  the  sending  of  it  to  the  Philippians,  must 
altogether  have  occupied  a  number  of  months  at  the 
least.  One  might  better  perhaps  suppose  that  it  was 
a  year,  or  a  year  and  a  half.  Since  the  imprisonment 
of  the  apostle  in  Rome  lasted  just  two  years,  it  must 
have  been  the  middle  of  the  second  year  at  least  before 
this  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  was  written.  Then  the 
date  of  the  Epistle  was  the  middle  of  the  year  63,  six 
months  before  the  narrative  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
came  to  its  end. 
Q 


242  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

The  object  of  the  Epistle  was,  as  I  have  intimated, 
not  to  reprove  any  particular  things  that  the  Philip- 
pians  were  guihy  of,  not  to  censure  them  as  the  apos- 
tle censures  the  Galatians,  for  example,  or  the  Corin- 
thians in  one  portion  of  the  Epistle ;  not  to  set  before 
them  any  great  scheme  of  Christian  doctrine,  nor  to 
vindicate  his  apostolic  authority,  as  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans.  The  object  of  the  Epistle  was  apparently 
to  pour  forth  the  gratitude  of  the  apostle's  heart  for 
the  great  kindness  and  love  which  they  had  shown  to 
him  in  sympathizing  with  him  in  his  troubles  and  in 
his  imprisonment,  to  encourage  them  in  enduring  simi- 
lar trials  and  sufferings,  and  to  increase  their  knowl- 
edge and  love  and  joy. 

I  do  not  know  of  any  other  Epistles  in  which  the 
personal  remarks  are  so  beautifully  expressed  as  they 
are  here.  It  is  the  natural  and  spontaneous  outflow 
of  the  apostle's  heart.  He  would  stimulate  their  Chris- 
tian virtues.  He  would  broaden  and  beautify  their 
Christian  character,  and  he  would  show  them  how  all 
spiritual  blessings  are  theirs  in  the  gospel  of  Christ. 
There  is  no  other  Epistle  of  Paul  which,  in  our  higher 
moments,  when  we  are  near  to  Christ,  seems  to  us  so 
sweet  and  beautiful  as  this  Epistle  to  the  Philippians. 

The  order  of  the  Epistle  is  determined  in  a  large 
part  by  this  desire  to  express  the  gratitude  of  the 
apostle  to  God.  In  the  very  first  verse  you  have  recog- 
nized an  organization  of  the  Christian  church  that  is 
noteworthy.  He  writes  to  those  who  recognize  Christ, 
to  the  saints  in  Philippi,  with  the  bishops  and  deacons ; 
i.  e.,  with  the  overseers  and  the  deacons.  Only  two 
orders  are  recognized,  only  two  sorts  of  officers  in  the 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    PHILIPPIANS  243 

Christian  church.  First  the  pastors,  or  overseers,  of 
the  flock,  and  then  the  deacons  of  the  church;  and  I 
suppose  we  have  here  the  outhne  of  church  organiza- 
tion in  the  apostolic  time.  We  do  not  anywhere  find 
that  there  are  more  than  these  two  ranks,  or  officers,  in 
the  Christian  church. 

One  of  the  first  prayers  is  "  that  their  love  may 
abound  yet  more  and  more  in  knowledge  and  in  all 
judgment."  He  recognizes  the  depth  of  their  Christian 
devotion,  but  he  would  have  a  discreet  devotion;  he 
would  have  an  affection  that  has  laws  and  bounds;  he 
would  have  it  conform  to  the  truth.  So  he  prays  that 
they  may  add  to  their  love  Christian  knowledge;  and 
then,  as  the  means  of  increasing  this  knowledge,  he 
speaks  of  his  own  personal  relations,  and,  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  first  chapter,  is  occupied  with  an  account 
of  his  own  experience,  and  of  the  fact  that  all  his 
trials  and  persecutions  have  been  the  means  of  further- 
ing the  gospel  of  Christ.  So  he  recognizes  everything 
that  has  happened  to  him  as  God's  choice,  ordained  not 
only  for  his  own  good,  but  for  the  good  of  the  Chris- 
tian church. 

Only  in  the  second  chapter  does  he  give  us  the  one 
doctrinal  portion  of  the  Epistle.  There  is  one  doctrine 
set  forth  in  this  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  with  a  ful- 
ness and  power  such  as  we  find  nowhere  else  in  the 
New  Testament.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  the  person  of 
Christ,  and  the  relation  of  the  divine  to  the  human 
nature  of  our  Saviour.  You  remember  how  it  begins. 
The  apostle  would  urge  them  to  humility,  and  he  sets 
before  them  the  example  of  Christ  who,  being  in  the 
form  of  God,  thought  not  his  equality  with  God  a  thing 


244  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

to  be  forcibly  retained,  but  emptied  himself,  taking 
upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  being  made  in 
the  likeness  of  man.  Not  only  did  he  humble  himself 
to  become  man,  but  he  further  humbled  himself  by 
suffering  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross.  "  Where- 
fore God  hath  highly  exalted  him  and  given  him  a 
name  above  every  name;  that  at  the  name  of  Jesus 
every  knee  should  bow,  of  things  in  heaven  and  things 
in  earth  and  things  under  the  earth,  and  that  every 
tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the 
glory  of  God  the  Father." 

There  is  no  more  sublime  passage  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment than  this.  It  sets  forth  the  infinite  glory  of 
Christ,  his  absolute  equality  with  God  in  the  begin- 
ning, and  then  his  emptying  himself  of  this  glory,  in 
order  that  he  might  unite  himself  to  our  human  nature, 
to  sanctify  and  redeem  it.  This  is  the  great  doctrine 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians.  What  a  motive  to 
humility  we  have !  He  who  was  rich  became  poor  that 
we  might  be  made  rich.  What  an  argument  for  self- 
denial  and  the  giving  up  of  our  own  personal  interests 
in  order  that  we  may  serve  Christ  and  his  church ! 

In  the  third  and  fourth  chapters  you  have  exhorta- 
tions to  unity;  you  have  warnings  against  Judaizing 
tendencies ;  and  you  have  the  Epistle  ending  with  warm 
salutations  and  expressions  of  the  apostle's  love.  As 
you  read  this  Epistle,  one  thing  is  very  striking  in  it; 
and  that  is  the  love  which  passes  all  love  that  is  com- 
mon among  men.  There  is  just  one  explanation  of  it. 
The  apostle  longs  after  the  Philippians  in  the  heart  of 
Jesus  Christ.  In  our  old  version  this  was  translated 
in  such  a  way  that  the  meaning  of  it  was  obscure,  even 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    PHILIPPIANS  245 

repulsive,  ''in  the  bowels  of  Jesus  Christ."  That 
word,  you  know,  was  in  the  old  times  simply  the  com- 
mon word  for  heart.  When  you  hear  of  an  accident 
to  a  friend,  it  affects  you  in  that  very  portion  of  your 
body  in  which  he  has  suffered.  You  have  an  awful 
feeling  of  goneness;  and  the  word  "bowels,"  because 
it  is  connected  with  our  own  emotions  of  sympathy 
with  the  trouble  and  pain  of  others,  came  to  be  used 
for  heart.  The  word  meant  only  "  heart,"  and  it 
ought  alwa3'S  to  have  been  translated  by  ''heart." 
The  apostle  longs  for  the  Philippians  "  in  the  heart  of 
Jesus  Christ."  As  much  as  to  say,  "  It  is  not  my  own 
affection  that  I  am  expressing.  I  am  incapable  of  this 
myself;  I  could  not  rise  to  this  height,  in  which  my 
sympathy  goes  out  to  Christians  in  the  remotest  part 
of  the  world,  and  bears  them  on  my  soul  continuously. 
This  is  all  due  to  the  fact  that  I  have  entered  into  union 
with  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  his  heart  has  become  my 
heart." 

My  dear  friends,  there  are  certain  things  we  can  do 
in  Christ,  and  by  virtue  of  our  relation  to  him,  that  we 
can  never  do  without  him.  There  is  a  sympathy  which 
we  can  feel  for  the  wants  and  needs  of  others,  long- 
ings for  their  good,,  unselfish  devotion  to  their  interest, 
which  is  absolutely  impossible  to  unregenerate  human 
nature.  It  becomes  possible  only  when  we  enter  into 
union  with  Christ.  Then  Christ  fills  our  hearts  with 
some  of  the  unselfish  sympathy  that  pervades  his  heart, 
and  we  ourselves  begin  to  feel.  Whatever  comes  to 
us,  we  long  to  devote  ourselves  to  Christ.  Here  is 
the  secret  of  Christian  generosity  and  unselfishness. 
When  we  become  one  with  Christ  we  g^et  out  of  our 


246  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

narrowness,  out  of  our  pettiness;  we  begin  to  love  as 
Christ  loves,  and  to  long  for  the  good  of  his  church 
as  Christ  longs  for  it.  So  this  whole  Epistle  to  the 
Philippians  is  a  continuous  exhortation  to  Christian 
peace,  Christian  faith,  Christian  confidence,  Christian 
joy,  and  Christian  love. 

If  Christ  is  only  an  ideal  conception  or  only  a 
historical  person  in  the  past,  this  faith,  love,  and  joy 
are  indeed  impossible.  But  if  Christ  is  a  living  and 
present  Saviour,  to  whom  we  may  become  so  united 
that  his  Spirit  takes  up  his  residence  in  us,  and  his 
heart  becomes  our  heart,  why,  then,  the  highest 
forms  of  Christian  life  are  simple  and  easy.  All 
things  are  possible  to  him  who  opens  his  heart  to  re- 
ceive the  great  Son  of  God,  and  who  by  faith  joins 
himself  to  Christ ;  for  thus  our  hearts  become  connected 
with  the  great  heart  of  the  universe  and  are  im- 
measurably enlarged. 

Here  is  the  secret  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians, 
and  of  the  joy,  peace,  and  comfort  that  fill  the  apos- 
tle's heart.  When  he  does  not  know  whether  the 
coming  week  shall  bring  to  him  life  or  death,  he  is 
content.  He  knows  that,  since  Christ  is  in  him  and  he 
is  in  Christ,  "  for  him  to  live  is  Christ,  and  to  die  is 
gain." 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  COLOSSIANS 

This  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  was  written  probably 
to  the  smallest  of  the  churches  which  Paul  addressed. 
Colosse  was  not  a  great  city,  compared  with  Corinth 
or  Rome  or  Ephesus;  and  yet,  from  this  small  city, 
there  went  out  influences  that  were  very  important 
for  the  kingdom  of  God. 

History  relates  that  Antiochus  the  Great,  that  tyrant 
and  oppressor  of  the  Jews,  brought  two  thousand 
Jewish  families  from  Mesopotamia  and  Babylon  and 
settled  them  in  Phrygia,  the  southwestern  part  of 
Asia  Minor.  This  Jewish  influence  w^as,  therefore, 
mixed  with  an  Oriental  influence;  and  the  strange 
combination  which  we  find  in  the  Colossian  church  of 
formalism  and  Oriental  theosophy  was  perhaps  de- 
termined by  the  fact  that  Judaism  in  this  portion  of 
the  world  had  a  historical  connection  with  the  East. 

In  Phrygia  there  were  three  cities  of  some  impor- 
tance. Both  Laodicea  and  Hierapolis  were  apparently 
of  more  importance  than  Colosse.  It  was  to  Laodicea 
that  John  wrote  one  of  his  seven  Epistles  to  the 
churches  in  Asia,  which  you  find  in  the  book  of  Reve- 
lation. 

Little  Colosse  was  situated  on  the  banks  of  the 
river  Lycus,  and  in  the  midst  of  magnificent  mountain 
scenery,  so  that  its  situation  seems  to  have  prompted 
a  loftiness  of  thought. 

It  does  not  appear  that  Paul  ever  made  to  Colosse 

247 


248  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

a  personal  visit.  During  his  stay  in  Ephesus,  at  the 
time  when  he  had  the  most  wonderful  success  in  all 
his  apostolic  ministry,  we  read  that  the  word  of  God 
went  out  into  the  regions  of  Asia.  Although  he  did 
not  himself  visit  Colosse,  it  would  almost  seem  that 
some  residents  of  Colosse  visited  Paul;  and  during 
those  two  years  when  he  was  teaching  in  the  school  of 
Tyrannus,  in  Ephesus,  day  by  day,  it  is  not  at  all 
improbable  that  some  of  the  visitors  from  Colosse 
heard  Paul,  became  his  converts,  and  took  back  the 
gospel  to  the  region  from  which  they  came. 

What  we  know  of  the  formation  of  the  church  is 
exceedingly  little ;  but  there  are  indications  that  Epaph- 
ras  (not,  by  the  way,  Epaphroditus,  who  was  a  mem- 
ber of  the  church  of  Philippi,  but  an  entirely  different 
person),  a  Colossian,  had  received  the  gospel  and  had 
become  the  evangelist  of  Colosse.  This  Epaphras, 
when  Paul  became  a  prisoner  at  Rome,  made  Paul  a 
visit  in  his  imprisonment  and  devoted  himself  to  the 
apostle's  care  with  such  assiduity  that  he  shared  the 
apostle's  sufferings  and  dangers.  It  would  almost 
seem  that  he  had  involved  himself  in  the  apostle's  im- 
prisonment, so  that  the  apostle  calls  him  a  "  fellow 
prisoner."  Whether  he  had  become  amenable  to  the 
law,  we  do  not  know,  but  the  epithet  Paul  bestowed 
upon  him  is  a  peculiar  one,  his  "  fellow  prisoner  in 
Christ." 

When  Epaphras  made  his  visit  to  Paul  it  is  evident 
that  he  related  to  Paul  the  circumstances  of  the  Colos- 
sian church ;  told  him  of  the  new  teaching  that  had  be- 
come current  among  them;  told  him  of  Jewish  teach- 
ers who  combined  with  their  Jewish  tendencies  some 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    COLOSSIANS  249 

Oriental  notions  of  a  newer  and  larger  wisdom  than 
w^as  provided  for  in  the  gospel  itself,  something  of 
the  nature  of  philosophy,  something  that  w^as  hidden 
from  the  mass  of  men,  and  w^as  the  possession  only  of 
the  few.  By  ascetic  practices,  and  by  fastings  and 
observances  of  an  outward  sort,  this  wisdom  might  be 
obtained.  Paul,  as  a  result  of  these  representations 
on  the  part  of  Epaphras,  writes  this  letter  to  the  Colos- 
sian  church. 

We  read  in  the  Epistle  to  Philemon  that,  just  about 
this  same  time,  Paul  had  been  the  means  of  converting 
to  Christ  a  runaway  slave  by  the  name  of  Onesimus, 
who  had  escaped  from  his  master  Philemon  and  had 
made  his  way  to  the  city  of  Rome,  where  he  thought 
perhaps  there  was  the  best  chance  of  his  being  hid. 
After  Paul  had  converted  him  to  Jesus  Christ,  Ones- 
imus was  anxious  to  return  to  his  master  and  make 
reparation  for  the  wrong  he  had  done  him.  Paul  sends 
him  back,  and  with  him  he  sends  that  beautiful  Epis- 
tle to  Philemon,  in  which  he  commends  Onesimus  to 
his  Christian  forgiveness.  Onesimus  and  Tychicus 
were  the  messengers  who  took  this  letter  to  the  Colos- 
sians  as  well,  and  with  this  apparently  the  letter  to  the 
Ephesians,  which  is  alluded  to  in  the  latter  part  of  this 
letter  to  the  Colossians,  where  the  apostle  speaks  of 
another  letter  which  the  Colossians  were  to  possess 
themselves  of,  while,  at  the  same  time,  they  w^ere  to 
give  to  the  Laodiceans  the  letter  w^hich  they  themselves 
had  received.  So  w^e  may  conclude  that  this  letter  to 
the  Colossians  was  written  either  at  the  close  of  the 
year  62,  or  at  the  beginning  of  the  year  63,  four  or 
five  years  after  the  Colossian  church  had  been  founded. 


250  THE   BOOKS   OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

It  is  necessary,  in  order  to  understand  the  apostle, 
to  get  some  more  full  idea  of  the  errors  that  had  begun 
to  be  prevalent  in  this  Colossian  church.  They  were 
very  peculiar.  They  were  such  as  we  do  not  find  al- 
luded to  in  the  previous  letters  of  Paul.  We  do  find 
some  allusions  to  them  in  the  pastoral  Epistles  to  Tim- 
othy and  Titus.  The  great  danger  of  the  Colossian 
church  was  the  danger  of  lukewarmness.  That  is  the 
specific  fault  which  John  rebukes  in  the  neighboring 
church  of  Laodicea.  Though  Laodicea  was  not  a  great 
city,  it  was  wealthy.  An  earthquake  took  place,  and 
Tacitus,  the  historian,  tells  us  that  Laodicea  was  able 
to  rebuild  itself  with  its  own  resources,  without  calling 
in  the  aid  of  Rome ;  and  this  seems  to  be  mentioned  as 
proof  that  it  was  a  place  of  considerable  importance. 

In  the  writings  of  John  to  Laodicea,  he  speaks  of 
the  church  as  fancying  that  it  was  rich  and  increas- 
ing in  goods  and  had  need  of  nothing.  This  appar- 
ently was  also  the  case  with  the  church  in  Colosse. 
Riches  had  corrupted  the  Christian  heart;  the  deceit- 
fulness  of  wealth  had  led  to  selfishness  and  lukewarm- 
ness in  their  Christian  faith ;  and  with  this  influence  of 
worldly  goods  there  was  intellectual  pride  and  self- 
satisfied  reliance  upon  what  mere  human  reason  and 
speculation  could  do.  There  grew  up  a  species  of 
wisdom  which  was  not  the  wisdom  of  Christ,  not  "  the 
wisdom  among  those  that  are  perfect,"  which  the  apos- 
tle speaks  of  in  his  letter  to  the  Corinthians,  but  a 
wisdom  of  this  world.  That  wisdom  was  exclusive ;  it 
prided  itself  upon  being  the  possession  of  the  few;  it 
was  an  esoteric  doctrine  held  by  those  who  fancied 
that   they   had   greater   intellectual   powers   than   the 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    COLOSSIANS  25 1 

majority  of  the  Christian  church.  Here  was  the  first 
great  danger  of  the  Colossian  church;  namely,  intel- 
lectual pride  and  dependence  upon  human  speculation, 
rather  than  upon  Christ  or  his  gospel.  This  tendency 
to  intellectual  speculation  ran  in  a  peculiar  course,  and 
that  course  seems  to  have  been  determined  for  it  by 
the  Oriental  influence  to  which  the  Jews  in  that  neigh- 
borhood had  become  subjected. 

In  order  to  explain  what  the  doctrine  was  which  the 
Colossians  held,  or  to  which  they  tended,  I  shall  have 
to  remind  you  of  the  fact  that,  in  the  East,  there  were 
large  numbers  of  persons  who  thought  it  was  absolutely 
necessary  to  separate  God  from  the  world  in  order  to 
explain  the  existence  of  evil.  They  thought  it  could 
not  be  that  God  had  himself  created  the  world,  because 
they  saw  so  much  in  the  world  that  was  wrong.  They 
fancied  that  the  existence  of  evil  was  an  incident  of 
matter.  Man  was  a  sinner  because  he  had  a  physical 
system.  This  was  a  strange  perversion  of  the  truth ;  it 
ignored  the  fact  that  the  soul  masters  the  body,  and 
that  the  body  is  only  the  servant  of  the  soul.  There  can 
be  no  sin  properly  in  the  body  itself,  for  all  sin  has  its 
source  in  the  spirit.  We  cannot  explain  moral  evil  by 
attributing  it  simply  to  the  body,  or  to  matter,  or  to 
the  physical  world.  The  only  possible  explanation  of 
moral  wrong  is  in  the  free  decision  of  the  moral  crea- 
ture against  God ;  in  other  words,  in  the  spirit  and  not 
in  the  body. 

But  this  strange  sect  of  thinkers  fancied  that  they 
could  explain  evil  by  calling  it  a  mere  incident  of  the 
physical  system,  something  which  had  its  origin  in  our 
connection  with  matter.     So  they  thought  to  remove 


252  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

God  just  as  far  as  possible  from  the  world,  from  the 
physical  universe;  and  they  did  it  in  this  way.  They 
said  that  all  things  proceeded  in  the  last  analysis  from 
God,  but  that  things  in  the  universe  were  successive 
emanations  from  the  substance  of  God;  God  was  the 
central  sun,  and  that  as  his  light  proceeded  farther  and 
farther  from  him,  it  became  more  and  more  mixed 
with  darkness;  so  that,  when  infinitely  removed  from 
God,  the  darkness  predominated  over  the  light,  and  on 
the  outskirts  of  the  universe  evil  was  in  the  ascendency. 
Or,  to  put  the  doctrine  in  a  somewhat  plainer  form  and 
using  the  word  creation,  these  thinkers  fancied  that 
God  only  created  at  the  beginning  something  that  was 
really  of  importance,  and  then  that  creation  created 
something  else — this  creation  that  was  at  the  second 
remove  from  the  intercourse  being  less  perfect  than 
the  first  one  was — that  this  second  created  a  third,  and 
that  third  created  a  fourth,  and  that  fourth  something 
still  beyond ;  and  when  you  got  far  enough  away  from 
God,  the  central  light  and  truth  and  holiness,  why,  of 
course,  you  had  something  that  was  very  imperfect 
indeed,  and  matter  was  one  of  these  last  emanations  or 
creations.  So  there  was  an  explanation  of  evil  in  the 
universe. 

You  can  see  at  once  that  between  man,  who  is  evil, 
and  God,  who  is  holy,  there  were  a  great  many  inter- 
mediate creations.  There  were  hierarchies,  principali- 
ties, and  powers  between  us  and  God.  It  could  not  be 
said  that  God  was  the  immediate  creator  either  of  our 
souls  or  of  our  bodies;  our  creation  was  due  to  some 
angelic  power.  And  because  these  angelic  powers  were 
between  us  and  God,  they  were  the  proper  and  natural 


THE   EPISTLE   TO    THE    COLOSSIANS  253 

objects  of  worship;  so  that  the  worship  of  angels  was 
one  of  the  features  of  this  Oriental  system.  You  can 
also  see  that,  if  God  was  so  very  lofty  and  so  very 
high,  and  we  were  so  very  evil  and  so  very  low,  it 
was  almost  impossible  that  these  corrupted  creatures 
could  go  at  once  to  God.  We  must  go  through  media- 
tors— these  angels,  these  principalities,  these  powers 
were  the  media  between  us  and  God,  and  they  were 
to  be  worshiped  as  the  means  by  which  we  might 
ascend  by  our  thoughts  and  by  our  prayers  to  the 
Most  High. 

Another  idea  besides  this  of  mediatorship  between 
man  and  God  was  the  result  of  this  system.  The  body, 
they  said,  is  the  source  of  evil.  If  we  only  could  get 
rid  of  the  body  we  could  be  holy.  Why,  then,  the 
more  you  can  get  rid  of  the  body  the  more  holy  you 
will  be.  If  we  cannot  slough  off  the  body  entirely,  let 
us  put  just  as  much  despite  upon  the  body  as  we  can. 
So  all  manner  of  ascetic  practices,  all  manner  of  morti- 
fications of  the  flesh  were  introduced,  as  if,  through 
them,  men  could  become  holy  and  could  commend 
themselves  to  God. 

You  see,  then,  that  there  were  three  great  practices 
or  errors.  First,  this  intellectual  exclusiveness,  this 
spirit  of  caste  in  the  Christian  church;  secondly,  this 
idea  of  mediatorship  between  man  and  God,  created 
beings  between  us  and  God  interposing  bars  between 
us  and  our  Maker;  and  then,  thirdly,  practical  asceti- 
cism, self-mortification,  putting  of  despite  upon  the 
body,  in  order  that  we  might  thereby  become  pure. 

These  great  errors  it  was  very  important  for  the 
subsequent  history  of  the  Christian  church  that  Paul 


254  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

should  correct.  If  the  Roman  church  had  only  paid 
attention  to  this  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  how  much 
monasticism  and  self-mortification,  how  much  depend- 
ence upon  the  Virgin  and  the  saints  as  mediators  with 
God,  would  have  been  rendered  forever  impossible ! 

The  remedy  which  Paul  suggests  for  all  this  is  sim- 
ply Christ.  Christ  is  the  remedy  for  all  error,  because 
Christ  is  the  absolute  and  perfect  truth.  The  preach- 
ing of  Christ  and  the  setting  forth  of  the  glory  and 
majesty  of  the  Son  of  God  sweep  away  these  various 
forms  of  error,  and  there  is  nothing  else  in  heaven 
or  in  earth  that  can  sweep  them  away. 

How  is  it  that  Paul  presents  Jesus  Christ  to  these 
Colossians,  in  order  to  destroy,  in  root  and  branch, 
this  dangerous  heresy  that  had  become  rife  among 
them?  Simply  in  this  way:  He  declares  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  head  of  the  universe ;  that  he  is  the  Lord 
of  all  things ;  that  he  is  the  Creator  through  whom  all 
things  were  made;  that  he  is  the  Sustainer,  so  that  all 
things,  either  in  the  physical  or  spiritual  universe,  hold 
together  only  in  him;  that  he  is  the  one  Revealer  of 
God;  that  he  is  the  only  wisdom  and  only  truth;  and 
that  the  Colossians,  if  they  have  Christ,  have  all.  See 
how  this  doctrine  applies  to  each  one  of  the  errors 
to  which  I  allude.  The  Colossians  were  claiming  that 
there  was  a  larger  wisdom,  which  might  be  the  pos- 
session of  a  few;  that  it  was  something  that  belonged 
only  to  the  initiated ;  that  it  was  something  above  and 
beyond  what  was  presented  to  them  in  the  gospel. 
Speculation  and  ascetic  practices,  they  claimed,  could 
put  them  in  possession  of  this  larger  and  nobler  under- 
standing of  the  truth.     How  does  Paul   refute  this 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    COLOSSIANS  255 

error?  By  declaring  to  them  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
wisdom  and  truth  of  God;  that,  if  they  have  Jesus 
Christ,  they  have  all  wisdom  and  all  truth;  and  that 
every  single  person  who  has  Christ  has  this  wisdom 
and  this  truth.  No  exclusiveness  at  all,  absolute  univer- 
salism  of  the  gospel. 

The  twenty-eighth  verse  of  the  first  chapter  of  the 
Colossians  we  often  read  without  understanding  the 
remarkable  significance  of  every  word  of  it.  Paul 
speaks  of  "  admonishing  every  man  and  teaching  every 
man  in  all  wisdom,  in  order  that  we  may  present  every 
man  perfect  in  Christ  Jesus."  Three  times,  in  that 
single  verse,  that  phrase  "  every  man  "  occurs.  Ad- 
monish every  man,  teach  every  man  in  all  wisdom, 
present  every  man  perfect — here  is  no  confining  of 
wisdom  to  a  few.  Every  member  of  the  Christian 
church  has  a  right  to  the  most  esoteric  teaching  that 
can  possibly  be  given.  All  the  treasures  of  wisdom  and 
knowledge  are  open  to  all  believers.  Paul  teaches  the 
perfect  democracy  of  the  church  of  God.  You  that 
belong  to  an  intellectual  caste  are  establishing  a  sort 
of  secret  society  inside  of  the  church.  The  notion 
has  in  it  an  infinite  amount  of  evil.  Admonish  every 
man  and  teach  every  man  in  Christ  the  true  wisdom  of 
God,  in  order  to  present  every  man  perfect.  No  one 
is  to  be  contented  with  imperfection.  All  there  is  of 
perfection  is  open  to  every  member  of  the  church  of 
Christ. 

The  second  great  error,  as  you  remember,  was  that 
of  mediatorship  between  man  and  God ;  angels,  princi- 
palities, and  powers  to  be  reverenced,  to  be  worshiped, 
and  to  be  made  successive  steps  by  which  we  might 


256  THE   BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

reach  up  to  God;  in  other  words,  separation  of  man 
from  God.  How  does  Paul  meet  that?  Why,  by  tell- 
ing the  Colossians  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  one  and  only 
Mediator  between  man  and  God.  Are  we  created 
by  some  angel  or  principality  or  power,  which  itself 
was  created  by  something  higher  than  it,  and  it 
created  by  something  higher,  and  so  on  through  suc- 
cessive sources  back  to  God?  Paul  replies  that  there 
is  just  one  Mediator  between  man  and  God,  and  one 
Creator,  and  that  Mediator  and  Creator  is  Christ.  The 
gulf  between  man  and  God  is  bridged  by  the  one  Jesus, 
our  Lord.  If  we  have  Christ,  we  pass  over  all  these 
mediators.  They  are  thrust  out  of  the  way ;  they  have 
never  existed.  Christ  is  the  one  Mediator;  when  we 
have  Christ  we  have  direct  communion  between  God 
and  man ;  and  because  Christ  is  God  the  Creator,  God 
the  Sustainer,  and  God  the  Revealer,  when  we  come  to 
Christ  we  come  into  direct  relation  to  God.  "  He  that 
hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father,"  says  Christ;  and 
for  salvation  his  prescription  is,  "  Come  unto  me." 

What  a  blessing  it  is,  my  brethren  and  friends,  that 
instead  of  being  shoved  ofif  at  a  great  distance  from 
God  and  taught  that  we  are  to  look  up  to  angelic 
agencies  by  which  we  are  to  reach  him,  we  are  told,  in 
this  Epistle,  that  every  Christian  has  direct  relations 
to  the  divine  Christ,  and  that  in  Christ  he  can  come 
into  direct  communion  with  God,  so  that  there  is 
nothing  any  longer  to  separate  him  from  the  holy  of 
holies  and  from  immediate  communion  with  the  Father 
of  his  spirit ! 

The  last  of  the  errors  which  I  mentioned  was  prac- 
tical asceticism  and  mortification  of  the  body ;  "  touch 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    COLOSSIANS  257 

not,  taste  not,  handle  not  " ;  the  idea  that,  by  all  sorts 
of  restrictions,  we  are  going  to  commend  ourselves 
to  God.  That  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Essenes,  in 
Palestine.  There  is  a  historical  connection  between 
the  doctrine  of  the  Essenes  and  the  Colossians  of  the 
first  century  and  the  Gnostic  heresy  that  sprang  from 
it  in  the  second  century.  Investigation  has  shown  the 
connection  between  these  three  forms  of  heretical 
teaching. 

The  Essenes,  in  Palestine,  had  all  these  various  ideas 
of  which  I  have  spoken.  They  abjured,  for  example, 
the  use  of  flesh,  of  wine,  and  of  oil ;  and  they  rejected 
marriage.  They  were  inclined  to  sun-worship,  that 
is,  a  worship  of  the  heavenly  luminary;  and  they  re- 
fused to  offer  bloody  sacrifices.  They  rejected  the 
resurrection  of  the  body,  because  the  body  was  mate- 
rial. The  body  was  a  source  of  evil ;  and  if  they  only 
got  rid  of  the  body  at  death  they  never  wanted  it  back 
again.  They  therefore  denied  that  the  body  was  to 
rise,  or  that,  in  the  next  world,  we  were  to  have  a 
body.  These  ascetic  notions  of  the  Essenes  were 
propagated  westward;  we  find  these  same  notions 
among  the  Colossians,  to  whom  Paul  writes ;  and  after- 
ward we  find  these  same  ideas,  more  largely  developed, 
in  the  Gnostics  of  the  second  century. 

How  did  Paul  meet  this  doctrine  of  mortification  of 
the  body  as  the  means  of  perfection?  Why,  simply 
by  preaching  Christ  again.  Christ  is  the  great  Puri- 
fier ;  Christ  in  the  heart  is  the  only  Sanctifier.  Do  you 
suppose  that  you  can  make  yourself  better  by  simply 
putting  yourself  through  bodily  mortification  and  as- 
cetic practices?  What  you  want  is  perfection  within, 
R 


258  THE    BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

purification  of  the  heart.  That  is  accomplished  only 
by  Christ  within  the  soul. 

Paul  mentions  these  outward  restrictions  with  a 
sort  of  contemptuous  tone,  ''  touch  not,  taste  not,  han- 
dle not,"  as  much  as  to  say  that  they  are  of  no  value 
whatever,  that  mere  asceticism  and  will-worship  can 
never  purify  the  flesh.  He  then  turns  to  the  Colos- 
sians  and  says :  "  If  ye  then  be  risen  with  Christ,  seek 
those  things  which  are  above,  where  Christ  sitteth  at 
the  right  hand  of  God,"  "  for  ye  died  and  your  life  is 
hid  with  Christ  in  God."  He  urges  them  to  put  away 
all  manner  of  evil,  because  they  have  Christ  in  them, 
and  Christ  is  the  very  life  of  their  souls. 

If  there  is  a  sensible  doctrine  in  the  world,  that  is  a 
sensible  doctrine,  as  opposed  to  the  absurd  notion  that 
man  can  somehow  make  himself  better  by  external 
mortifications  and  ablutions  and  restrictions.  So  we 
have  Christ,  the  explanation  of  all  the  problems,  and 
the  remedy  for  all  the  errors  of  the  Colossian  church. 
The  remedy  for  all  this  intellectual  exclusiveness  is  in 
Christ,  the  wisdom  of  God.  The  remedy  for  all  this 
notion  of  mediators,  or  agencies,  between  man  and  God 
is  the  idea  of  Christ,  the  one  Mediator.  The  remedy 
for  all  this  foolish  notion  of  physical  mortifications 
and  self-denials  is  the  living  Christ  within,  the  only 
Purifier  and  Sanctifier  of  the  human  spirit. 

What  a  magnificent  doctrine  this  is  that  Paul 
preaches  to  us  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians!  In 
treating  it  I  have  followed  the  order  of  the  apostle. 
First  of  all,  Paul  sets  forth  the  dignity  and  glory  of 
Christ ;  then  he  states  that,  since  we  have  such  a  Christ, 
we  ought  to  beware  of  being  led  astray  by  philosophy 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE    COLOSSIANS  259 

and  vain  deceit,  after  the  rudiments  of  the  world  and 
not  after  Christ;  and  in  the  concluding  chapter,  since 
we  have  this  Christ  and  all  these  glorious  privileges, 
he  urges  us  to  walk  worthily  of  the  gospel  which  we 
have  received. 

In  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  we  have  a  yet  more 
general  truth  intimated  to  us,  namely,  the  relation  be- 
tween philosophy  and  religion.  There  are  many  men 
who  excuse  their  unbelief  and  disobedience  with  the 
idea  that  they  have  a  better  philosophy  than  that  which 
Christianity  can  furnish.  I  would  like  to  have  you 
notice  the  word  which  Paul  uses  when  he  speaks  of 
such  philosophy  as  that.  He  bids  us  beware  of  being 
led  astray  by  ''  vain  deceit,  after  the  rudiments  of 
this  world."  Rudiments?  What  are  rudiments? 
Why,  rudiments  are  nothing  but  the  A,  B,  C.  Just  as 
much  as  to  say:  Why,  you  people,  who  think  you 
have  so  much  philosophy,  have  only  learned  the  first 
letters  of  the  alphabet.  You  really  do  not  know  what 
philosophy  is.  The  trouble  with  you  is  that  you  keep 
yourselves  in  the  primary  class,  when  you  ought  to 
have  a  knowledge,  not  only  of  the  whole  alphabet,  but 
of  everything  that  the  whole  alphabet  can  spell.  Do 
not  content  yourself  with  the  rudiments  of  the  world ! 
Do  not  content  yourself  with  things  that  can  be  per- 
ceived only  with  the  intellectual  eye,  while  you  neglect 
the  things  perceived  only  with  the  heart.  You  cannot 
trust  your  native  reason,  your  mere  intellect,  unen- 
lightened by  the  Spirit  of  God  and  unconditioned  by 
a  right  state  of  the  affections.  No  man,  with  the 
corrupt  and  perverse  nature  which  he  has  received 
from  his  ancestry,  can  trust  in  himself,  unaided.    He  is 


26o  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

dependent  upon  the  Spirit  of  God  and  upon  divine  illu- 
mination. 

A  young  man,  sick  with  the  typhoid  fever,  was  in 
that  peculiar  state  where  some  of  his  perceptions  were 
normal  and  some  abnormal.  He  was  partly  rational, 
and  partly  irrational.  In  his  state  of  weakness,  life 
itself  depended  upon  his  taking  nourishment.  His 
mother  came  to  him  and  said,  "  My  son,  drink  this 
milk.''  He  looked  at  it  a  moment  and  said,  *'  It  is 
black !  "  The  mother  replied :  "  Oh,  no,  my  son,  it  is 
not  black,  this  is  milk.  Drink  it,  the  doctor  says  you 
must  take  it."  He  looked  at  it  again  and  said,  "  No,  it 
is  black!"  He  would  not  take  the  milk.  He  died.  Now 
a  perverse  heart,  a  depraved  nature,  can  just  as  little 
trust  some  of  its  perceptions  and  notions  with  regard  to 
God  and  divine  things  as  that  young  man  could  trust 
the  sight  of  his  eyes.  Suppose  he  had  said  to  his 
mother :  "  Why,  mother,  have  I  not  eyes?  has  not  God 
given  me  eyes  to  see  with  ?  is  there  anything  more  cer- 
tain than  the  sight  of  my  eyes  ?  The  sight  of  my  eyes 
declares  that  it  is  black."  That  young  man  was  very 
foolish.  He  should  have  taken  into  consideration  that 
he  was  in  a  state  of  fever  and  that,  in  his  deplorable 
physical  condition,  his  eyes  might  deceive  him.  In  re- 
ligion I  would  a  great  deal  rather  trust  the  word  of  God 
than  trust  perceptions  of  my  perverse  spiritual  na- 
ture; and,  if  I  have  notions  or  beliefs  which  contradict 
the  word  of  God,  it  becomes  me  to  submit  my  beliefs  to 
the  declarations  of  Christ.  That  is  better  wisdom  than 
the  fevered  philosophy  of  a  man  who  is  in  this  de- 
praved moral  state.  So  with  regard  to  the  relation 
between  philosophy  and  Christianity.     Philosophy  has 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    COLOSSIANS  261 

only  a  rudimentary  knowledge  of  the  truth.  Chris- 
tianity has  the  whole  truth,  because  it  is  the  whole 
wisdom  of  God  as  it  is  revealed  in  Jesus  Christ. 

Paul  does  not,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  speak 
of  any  overt  acts  of  immorality  on  the  part  of  the 
teachers  of  false  doctrine.  But  we  ought  to  remember 
that,  in  the  second  century,  when  these  germs  had  de- 
veloped and  borne  fruit,  the  Gnostics  were  honey- 
combed with  immorality,  and  their  immorality  was  of 
the  most  degrading  description.  If  teachers  of  unbe- 
lief do  not,  at  present,  show  the  dreadful  fruits  of 
false  teaching  in  their  own  private  lives,  those  fruits 
will  certainly  be  shown  in  time,  at  least  in  their  disci- 
ples. It  is  only  the  tree  of  correct  Christian  doctrine 
that  bears,  in  the  long  run,  the  fruit  of  true  morality. 

Let  us  be  very  careful,  therefore,  to  hold  the  truth 
of  Christ  as  it  is  revealed  in  his  word.  There  is  no 
safety  but  in  accepting  Christ  as  not  only  the  way 
and  the  life,  but  also  the  truth.  This  Epistle  to  the 
Colossians  presents  to  us  Christ  as  the  head  of  all 
things  to  the  universe,  just  as  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephe- 
sians  presented  to  us  Christ  as  the  head  over  all  things 
to  the  church. 


THE  EPISTLES  TO  THE  THESSALONIANS 

In  the  very  earliest  times  there  was  a  place  called 
Therma,  at  the  northwestern  corner  of  the  ^gean 
Sea.  It  was  so  called  because  there  were  warm  springs 
there;  and  that  place  Therma  gave  its  name  to  the 
Thermaic  Gulf,  the  northwestern  projection,  so  to 
speak,  of  the  Greek  Archipelago.  That  place  w^as 
beautifully  situated  and  had  great  advantages  for  com- 
merce. The  result  was  that,  in  the  year  315  before 
Christ,  Cassander  rebuilt  it  and  gave  it  a  new  name 
from  the  name  of  his  wife,  who  was  the  sister  of 
Alexander  the  Great ;  and  the  name  he  gave  to  the  place 
was  Thessalonica. 

This  Thessalonica  became  afterward  one  of  the 
great  cities  of  the  Via  Egnatia,  the  great  Roman  mili- 
tary road  between  the  East  and  the  West,  and  a  place 
of  great  political  importance. 

In  the  time  of  the  apostle  it  was  the  capital  of  Mace- 
donia; it  was  governed  by  a  Roman  prefect,  although 
under  him  the  old  laws  were  respected,  and  according 
to  those  old  laws  there  were  seven  politarchs,  so  called, 
or  magistrates,  elected  by  the  people.  It  is  a  very 
curious  fact  that  this  word  "  politarchs  "  is  used  in 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  in  describing  the  founding  of 
the  church  at  Thessalonica.  The  word  precisely  an- 
swers to  what  has  recently  been  found  to  be  the  actual 
government  of  the  city.  The  word,  moreover,  is  found 
in  inscriptions  upon  the  site  of  the  old  city  of 
262 


THE    EPISTLES    TO    THE    THESSALONIANS  263 

Thessalonica ;  and  a  ruined  arch  not  only  has  this  word 
''  poHtarch  "  on  it,  but  has  also  some  names  which  bear 
a  very  strong  resemblance  to  those  we  find  in  the  Acts 
and  in  the  Epistles.  So  we  have  evidence  that  the  ac- 
counts of  the  founding  of  the  church  in  the  Acts  and 
in  the  Epistles,  which  were  written  by  Paul,  are  all 
genuine.  They  exactly  fit  in  with  what  we  know  from 
other  sources  to  be  the  surroundings  and  government 
of  the  place. 

Thessalonica  was  a  center  from  which  Christianity 
might  be  very  easily  diffused,  for  it  was  upon  the 
great  highway  from  the  East  to  the  West.  All  the 
travel  from  East  to  West  passed  through  it.  And,  as 
it  was  a  seaport  of  great  importance,  it  shared  with 
Corinth  and  with  Ephesus  the  commerce  of  the  ^gean 
Sea.  We  are  quite  prepared  to  hear  Paul  say  to  us 
that  from  Thessalonica  the  gospel  had  sounded  out 
through  Macedonia  and  all  Achaia. 

The  modern  town  is  called  Salonica,  a  corruption 
or  shortening  of  the  ancient  word.  Even  now  it  is 
the  second  city  in  European  Turkey.  It  has  a  popu- 
lation of  ninety  thousand,  a  curious  population  in  its 
constitution,  for  one-third  of  them  are  Spanish  Jews 
who  came  thither  when  they  were  expelled  from  Spain ; 
one-third  are  Greeks;  and  another  third  are  Turks. 

Very  curiously  too,  one  of  the  commonest  trades  in 
Salonica  to-day  is  the  weaving  of  goat's-hair,  so  that 
travelers  say  that  the  sound  which  most  frequently 
strikes  one's  ear  as  he  passes  through  the  streets,  is 
the  click  of  the  shuttle.  And  we  read,  in  the  found- 
ing of  the  church,  that  Paul  worked  here  with  his  own 
hand;  worked  undoubtedly  at  his  trade  of  weaving 


264  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

goat's-hair,  or  making  tents  of  goat's-hair;  worked  be- 
fore the  break  of  day  in  order  to  save  his  time  for 
preaching,  and  yet  support  himself  in  his  labors  for 
the  gospel. 

You  remember  that,  after  Paul  had  preached  the 
gospel  in  Philippi  and  had  passed  through  stripes  and 
imprisonment,  he  was  compelled  to  leave  the  town, 
and  to  leave  it  suddenly.  With  his  back  still  raw  and 
bleeding  from  the  scourge,  he  made  his  way  through 
Apollonia  and  Amphipolis  until  he  came  to  Thessa- 
lonica.  As  there  is  no  mention  of  his  staying  any 
length  of  time  in  these  intermediate  places,  it  seems 
to  be  altogether  probable  that,  without  delay,  he  pro- 
ceeded to  Thessalonica,  and  began  to  preach  the  gospel 
there — a  remarkable  instance  of  courage  and  devotion 
in  the  prosecution  of  his  work.  Persecution  in  one 
place  only  drives  him  to  another ;  and,  no  sooner  has  he 
reached  that  other,  than  he  immediately  begins  to 
proclaim  the  same  truth  that  had  brought  him  into 
difficulty  before.  The  teacher  is  as  indomitable  as  the 
truth  is  unchangeable. 

During  his  stay  in  Thessalonica  he  was  dependent 
upon  his  own  labor  for  his  support.  People  there  do 
not  appear  to  have  been  wealthy.  He  would  not  lay 
upon  those  who  were  won  for  the  gospel  the  burden 
of  supporting  him.  During  that  short  stay — perhaps 
not  more  than  a  month — he  twice  received  contribu- 
tions from  the  Philippian  brethren  whom  he  had  so 
recently  left.  So  by  his  own  personal  labor,  before  the 
break  of  day  or  possibly  by  night  work,  after  he  had 
been  preaching  the  gospel  in  public  and  from  house  to 
house  all  the  day,  Paul  gained  the  means  of  his  own 


THE    EPISTLES    TO    THE    THESSALONIANS  265 

support  in  carrying  on  his  work  in  the  gospel.  For 
three  Sabbath  days  he  preached  the  gospel  in  the 
synagogue. 

In  Philippi  there  was  no  synagogue;  but  in  Thessa- 
lonica,  apparently,  there  was  a  large  number  of  Jews, 
and  probably  a  synagogue  where  they  met  together. 
Some  Jews,  it  is  said,  believed,  and  of  the  chief  women 
not  a  few;  and  a  multitude  of  proselytes  were  con- 
verted— heathen  adherents  of  the  synagogue,  or  Gen- 
tiles who  had  accepted  more  or  less  perfectly  the  Jew- 
ish faith,  but  had  not  actually  become  Jews.  The  result 
seems  to  have  been  the  formation  of  a  church  that 
was  mainly  composed  of  Gentile  converts.  We  do  not 
find  in  Paul's  letters  to  the  church  any  evidences  of 
necessity  on  his  part  to  deal  with  questions  of  law  and 
circumcision,  such  as  we  find  him  dealing  with  when  he 
writes  to  other  churches  that  were  Jewish  in  their  con- 
stitution. 

He  preached  the  gospel  here  for  about  four  weeks, 
and  gathered  to  himself  so  large  a  number  of  these 
proselytes  that  he  aroused  the  wrath  of  the  unbelieving 
Jews.  They  stirred  up  a  riot  against  him.  They  as- 
sembled a  great  number  of  unbelievers  in  the  market- 
place; and,  with  this  following,  made  an  assault  upon 
the  house  of  Jason,  Paul's  host.  In  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  Jason  is  called  a  kinsman  of  Paul.  Some 
have  supposed  that  this  means  a  kinsman  spiritually; 
yet  it  seems  most  natural  to  take  the  word  in  its  literal 
acceptation.  When  the  Jews  made  their  assault  upon 
the  house  of  Jason,  Paul  and  Silas  and  Timothy  were 
not  there.  They  were  perhaps  preaching  elsewhere, 
although  still  somewhere  in  the  town.    The  Jews  could 


266  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

only  take  Jason,  Paul's  host,  and  bring  him  before  the 
magistrates,  the  politarchs  of  the  city. 

They  made  the  charge  that  Paul  and  Silas  and  Tim- 
othy were  attempting  to  establish  another  sovereignty, 
by  preaching  in  the  name  of  one  Jesus,  a  king.  The 
intimation  was  that  they  were  subverting  the  consti- 
tuted authority  and  were  guilty  of  high  treason.  The 
magistrates  were  desirous  of  maintaining  their  good 
relations  with  Rome.  If  they  allowed  such  preaching 
as  this  to  go  on  they  would  be  compromised;  and,  as 
they  were  unable  at  the  time  to  take  bail  of  Paul  and 
Silas,  they  seem  to  have  taken  bail  of  Jason,  that  no 
harm  should  be  suffered  and  that  this  work  should  not 
continue.  The  result  was  that  Paul  and  Silas  and 
Timothy,  that  very  night,  took  their  departure  from 
Thessalonica,  and  presently  made  their  way  south- 
ward to  Athens,  and  finally  to  Corinth,  to  which  Paul 
came  toward  the  close  of  the  year  A.  D.  50. 

The  persecution  which  had  failed  to  harm  the  apos- 
tles themselves  broke  upon  the  devoted  heads  of  the 
new  church-members  at  Thessalonica.  It  would  seem 
that  they  were  maltreated  after  the  departure  of  Silas 
and  Paul,  and  that  their  circumstances  of  persecution 
and  trial  called  especially  for  the  sympathy  of  the 
apostle.  This  doubtless  was  one  of  the  reasons  why 
the  first  letter  to  the  Thessalonians  was  written.  Paul 
naturally  was  concerned  about  the  spiritual  and  the 
temporal  welfare  of  these  new  converts.  Twice  he 
proposed  to  make  them  a  visit,  but  in  one  way  or 
another  he  was  prevented.  At  last  he  sent  Timothy  to 
inquire  with  regard  to  their  state,  and  when  Timothy 
came  back  to  him  with  a  favorable  report,  declaring 


THE    EPISTLES    TO    THE    THESSALONIANS  267 

that  they  were  still  steadfast  in  their  faith,  and  were 
still  witnessing  for  Christ  in  spite  of  persecutions,  and 
in  spite  of  many  sorrows  which  had  recently  come  to 
them  in  the  deaths  of  some  they  greatly  loved,  Paul's 
heart  overflowed  with  gratitude,  and  as,  at  another 
time,  he  wrote  to  the  Corinthians  his  second  Epistle 
full  of  love  and  thanksgiving  to  God,  so  he  was  moved 
to  write  this  first  letter  to  the  Thessalonians,  which 
expresses  his  ardent  affection,  and  encourages  them  to 
endure  persecution.  Paul  aims  also  to  instruct  them 
further  in  the  Christian  life,  and  to  build  them  up  in 
faith  and  holiness.  As  we  read  this  first  Epistle,  es- 
pecially the  first  three  chapters  of  it,  we  perceive  that 
here  is  a  church  that  is  living  in  the  first  freshness  of 
its  love  to  Christ.  It  is  a  beautiful  picture  of  over- 
flowing faith  and  zeal  and  affection.  The  apostle 
recognized  it  as  a  church  in  which  the  power  of  God 
had  been  made  manifest.  As  they  had  gladly  received 
the  word,  so  they  had  been  faithful  to  the  word  which 
they  had  received. 

Yet,  at  the  same  time,  there  were  certain  things  that 
needed  to  be  corrected,  and  which  required  admoni- 
tion. The  members  of  the  church  were  mostly  Greeks, 
and  they  showed  the  defects  of  the  Greek  character. 
They  were  impulsive  and  excitable,  and  there  was  a 
tendency  to  indolence  among  them.  Some  were  prone 
to  avarice,  and  there  was  danger  in  sensual  directions. 
All  these  things  Paul  recognizes;  and  while  he  com- 
mends them  for  their  love  and  patience  and  faithful- 
ness to  Christ,  he  warns  them  against  these  wrong  ten- 
dencies, and  strives  to  set  them  right.  And  yet,  after 
all,  the  great  danger  of  the  Thessalonians  has  not  yet 


268  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

been  mentioned.  Their  main  defects,  and  the  main 
difficulties  toward  which  Paul  addresses  himself  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  First  Epistle,  center  about  the  doc- 
trine of  the  coming  of  Christ.  If  we  can  only  under- 
stand what  Paul's  preaching  had  been,  and  how  they 
had  received  that  preaching,  I  think  we  shall  have  the 
proper  point  of  view  from  which  to  estimate  these  two 
Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians. 

At  this  time  in  the  apostle's  life  he  had  not  advanced, 
so  far  as  we  can  see,  to  the  teaching  of  those  larger 
and  profounder  doctrines  of  the  Christian  faith  which 
he  sets  forth  so  magnificently  in  the  Romans  and  in 
the  Ephesians  and  in  the  Colossians.  It  was  a  sort 
of  elementary  teaching  that  he  gave  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians, perhaps  because  of  the  fact  that  they  were  new 
converts  from  among  the  heathen,  and  that  one  thing, 
above  all,  needed  to  be  impressed  upon  them,  namely, 
the  Lordship  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  preaching  of  Paul 
to  the  Thessalonians,  if  we  may  judge  from  his  Epis- 
tles, was  such  preaching  as  we  find  represented  in 
his  speeches  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

Addressing  heathen,  as  he  did,  he  reproves  their 
sins,  declares  their  need  of  pardon,  and  stimulates 
them  to  repentance  by  declaring  the  coming  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  as  a  Judge.  When  he  has  thus  spoken  of 
Christ  as  the  Lord,  and  of  Christ's  coming  to  judge 
the  world,  the  Thessalonians  are  led  to  accept  the  gos- 
pel, to  believe  in  this  Christ  as  a  Saviour,  and  actually 
to  enter  the  Christian  church. 

Four  weeks  with  these  heathen  converts  was  not  a 
long  time  to  expound  the  mysteries  of  the  gospel  of 
Christ.     It  would  seem  that  the  teaching  given  them 


THE    EPISTLES    TO    THE    THESSALONIANS  269 

was  somewhat  elementary.  The  doctrine  of  the  com- 
ing of  Christ  was  not  fully  understood  by  some  of  the 
Thessalonians. 

After  Paul  had  departed,  they  were  led  to  think  that 
the  coming  of  Christ  was  not  to  be  long  delayed ;  that 
it  was  certainly  to  take  place  in  the  lifetime  of  those 
who  were  then  members  of  the  church.  Since  some 
whom  they  especially  loved  had  died  already,  they 
drew  the  inference  that  these  departed  friends,  by 
dying  before  Christ's  coming,  had  lost  their  share  in 
the  Messianic  glory;  in  other  words,  that  those  who 
had  been  so  early  and  prematurely  taken  away  were 
debarred  from  participation  in  the  Saviour's  triumph ; 
and  they  grieved  that  their  departed  friends  had  lost 
so  much. 

In  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  Paul  cor- 
rects this  error  first  of  all,  and  tells  them  that,  when 
Christ  comes,  those  who  sleep  in  Jesus  will  be  the  first 
that  are  raised  from  the  dead ;  that  they  will  be  caught 
up  in  the  air;  and  that  then  those  who  are  living  will 
be  caught  up  with  them,  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the 
clouds.  Paul  corrects  their  wrong  impression  with 
regard  to  the  meaning  of  his  words.  He  declares  that 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead  is  one  event;  that  all  are 
to  be  raised  together;  that  all  are  to  be  raised  at  the 
coming  of  Christ;  and  that  the  rising  of > those  who 
have  departed  in  the  faith  of  Jesus  will  precede  in  time 
the  rising  of  those  who  are  still  living  at  his  coming. 
Since  some  were  disposed  to  regard  this  coming  as 
immediate,  Paul  urges  them  to  be  faithful  in  their  ap- 
pointed calling;  quietly  to  earn  their  own  livelihood 
from  day  to  day;  to  be  prepared  for  whatever  may 


270  THE   BOOKS   OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

come ;  to  be  prepared  whenever  Christ  comes,  by  being 
prepared  always.  And  there  the  First  Epistle  to  the 
Thessalonians  leaves  the  matter. 

There  was  a  class  of  New  Testament  prophets  who, 
under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  interpreted  the 
Scriptures.  Some  of  these  prophets  had  declared  the 
real  truth  with  regard  to  this  matter  of  Christ's  com- 
ing and  had  pointed  out  their  mistake  to  those  who 
were  thus  agitated  and  excited.  Those  who  were  thus 
agitated  had  been  inclined  to  neglect  the  admonitions 
that  had  been  given  to  them.  Paul,  therefore,  advises 
the  Thessalonians  not  to  despise  the  prophets,  but  to 
heed  the  instruction  which  they  gave  under  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Spirit.  With  these  particular  injunctions, 
and  with  a  few  others  directed  to  more  minute  matters 
of  Christian  practical  life,  the  First  Epistle  closes. 

Both  the  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians  must  be  dated 
in  the  year  A.  D.  51.  During  the  interval  that  elapsed 
between  the  First  and  Second  Epistles — an  interval 
not  very  long  in  point  of  time,  probably  not  more  than 
six  months  at  the  most — it  would  seem  as  if  these 
tendencies  in  the  Thessalonian  church  increased,  until 
at  last  the  agitation  become  very  general,  and  the  mis- 
interpretation of  Paul's  views  became  much  more 
serious  than  at  the  first. 

People  who  are  not  accustomed  to  think  very  deeply 
can  take  any  sort  of  document,  can  run  away  with  a 
single  phrase  and  exaggerate  its  meaning,  while  at 
the  same  time  they  neglect  the  qualifying  words  that 
have  been  used,  and  so  fail  to  get  the  whole  scope  of 
the  document.  In  this  way  the  First  Epistle  of  Paul 
to  the  Thessalonians  was  misinterpreted.     While  Paul 


THE    EPISTLES    TO    THE    THESSALONIANS  2yi 

speaks  of  what  will  happen  at  the  coming  of  Christ, 
and  declares  that  all  should  be  ready  for  his  coming, 
the  inference  was  unwarrantably  drawn  that  Christ's 
coming  was  in  the  immediate  future,  and  that,  there- 
fore, the  main  thing  to  do  was  to  watch  for  the  com- 
ing of  the  Lord  and  pay  little  attention  to  ordinary 
temporal  affairs.  Paul  was  credited  w4th  teaching  that 
in  the  lifetime  of  those  then  living  Christ  would  come 
in  the  clouds  of  heaven,  with  power  and  great  glory. 
It  was  necessary  that  Paul  should  correct  this  misappre- 
hension of  his  teaching.  His  second  letter  was  written 
to  set  everything  right  by  declaring  that  they  had  mis- 
understood what  he  had  said  to  them. 

When  you  compare  these  two  letters  of  the  apostle, 
four  things  are  perfectly  plain  with  regard  to  them. 
The  first  is,  that  the  two  letters  agree  perfectly  with 
one  another.  The  doctrine  of  the  one  is  perfectly  con- 
sistent with  the  doctrine  of  the  other.  They  are  two 
hemispheres  which  complement  one  another.  The 
second  is,  that  there  is  not,  in  either  of  these  Epistles, 
any  statement  that  our  Lord  would  come  during  the 
lifetime  of  those  who  were  then  members  of  the  church. 
In  the  Second  Epistle,  Paul  makes  it  perfectly  plain 
that  this  is  not  to  be  so,  by  the  fact  that  he  prophesies 
great  intervening  events,  and  declares  that  these  must 
take  place  before  the  Lord  can  come.  "  The  man  of 
sin  "  must  be  revealed.  There  is  a  power  which  now 
withholds  his  full  manifestation,  and  that  withholding 
power  must  be  taken  away  first.  In  other  words,  it  is 
intimated  that  the  end  is  farther  away  than  these 
Thessalonians  are  inclined  to  believe.  These  great  in- 
tervening events,  then,  are  set  forth  as  the  third  piece 


2^2  THE    BOOKS   OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

of  instruction  which  the  apostle  gives  to  them.  And 
then,  fourthly,  it  is  perfectly  plain,  upon  reading  these 
Epistles  together,  that  the  apostle  never  did  teach  ex- 
pressly, and  never  did  teach  at  all,  that  Christ  was  to 
come  in  the  lifetime  of  Paul  himself. 

It  is  quite  possible  that  the  apostle  Paul  had  his  own 
private  surmises  with  regard  to  the  meaning  of  his 
prophetic  utterances.  But  it  is  very  important  that  we 
should  distinguish  between  inspiration  and  inferences 
from  inspiration.  It  is  very  important  that  we  should 
distinguish  between  what  the  Spirit  definitely  commu- 
nicates with  regard  to  the  future,  and  the  private  im- 
pressions which  even  an  apostle  may  have  with  regard 
to  the  meaning  of  those  things  that  are  communicated. 
Peter,  in  his  Epistle,  declares  that  those  who  were 
inspired  in  the  Old  Testament  times  "  sought  what 
time  or  what  manner  of  time  the  Spirit  within  them  did 
signify,  when  they  spoke  beforehand  of  the  sufferings 
of  Christ  and  the  glory  that  should  follow."  In  other 
words,  even  inspired  men  in  Old  Testament  times, 
when  they  had  communicated  great  things  with  regard 
to  the  future,  looked  upon  this  revelation  with  wonder, 
and  did  not  comprehend  its  meaning.  A  man  may 
have  given  to  him  great  revelations  with  regard  to  the 
future,  which,  yet,  he  may  not  be  able  to  understand. 
Just  as  under  the  Old  Testament,  the  prophets  had 
made  known  to  them  things  with  regard  to  the  coming 
of  Christ,  and  yet  what  time  it  was,  or  what  manner 
of  time  it  was,  in  which  these  things  were  to  take 
place,  they  did  not  understand;  just  so  Paul  seems 
to  have  had  made  known  to  him  the  fact  of  the  second 
coming  of  Christ,  the  resurrection,  and  the  judgment, 


THE    EPISTLES    TO    THE    THESSALONIANS  273 

and  yet  Paul  was  not  told  when  these  things  were  to 
take  place.  He  was  left  to  himself  with  regard  to 
that  matter,  and  knew  but  little  more  as  to  the  time 
of  Christ's  coming  than  did  these  church-members 
whom  he  addressed.  Indeed,  in  the  early  part  of  Paul's 
life  and  ministry,  and  even  while  he  was  preaching  to 
the  Thessalonians  and  writing  to  them,  Paul  may  have 
had  a  private  surmise  and  hope  that  this  revelation 
might  refer  to  a  time  very  near  at  hand  in  the  future, 
and  might  have  hoped  that  Christ's  coming  might  be 
in  his  own  day.  But  if  he  had  such  a  private  surmise 
as  that,  he  never  once  taught  it.  There  is  not  one  word, 
in  the  Acts  or  in  any  one  of  his  Epistles,  which  shows 
that  Paul  ever  vouched  for  the  immediate  coming  of 
Christ.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  plain  that,  as  the 
apostle's  life  went  on,  his  private  impressions  with  re- 
gard to  the  meaning  of  Christ's  revelation  of  the  future 
changed  their  character;  when  he  writes  to  Timothy, 
the  last  of  the  Epistles  which  we  know  to  have  pro- 
ceeded from  him — Second  Timothy — he  says  :  "  Now 
I  am  ready  to  be  offered,  and  the  time  of  my  departure 
is  at  hand ;  I  have  fought  a  good  fight,  I  have  finished 
my  course,  I  have  kept  the  faith."  In  other  words,  he 
expects  death,  after  the  ordinary  manner,  and  per- 
haps by  martyrdom.  He  does  not  expect  that  the  Lord 
will  come  before  he  dies.  He  has  got  past  any  such 
impression  as  that.  Either  he  has  had  new  communi- 
cations from  God  with  regard  to  the  time,  so  that  now 
he  understands  that  it  is  not  in  the  immediate  future, 
or  he  has  used  his  ordinary  faculties  of  human  dis- 
cernment to  such  effect  that  he  sees  the  time  to  be 
farther  away  than  he  supposed  in  his  early  experience, 
s 


274  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

But,  I  would  have  you  remember,  he  has  never  taught 
anything  about  it ;  and  whatever  false  impressions  have 
been  formed  by  the  Thessalonians  in  regard  to  this 
matter  have  been  their  own  impressions,  and  not  the 
necessary  or  proper  result  of  any  apostolic  assertion. 

In  the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  there- 
fore, Paul  corrects  the  misapprehension  that  the 
Thessalonians  had  received  with  regard  to  his  first 
communication;  shows  them  that  there  must  be  great 
intervening  events  first;  and  urges  them  to  put  away 
habits  of  indolence  and  neglect  of  business,  and  to 
give  up  looking  to  the  richer  members  of  the  church 
for  their  support,  on  the  plea  that  the  Lord  is  coming 
so  soon  that  there  is  no  use  of  labor  or  anxiety  with 
regard  to  the  future.  He  teaches  that  every  man  must 
work  in  order  that  he  may  eat,  and  may  have  some- 
thing besides  with  which  to  help  those  who  are  less 
comfortably  of¥  than  he.  It  is  true  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  the  prophecy  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, and  the  church  polity  of  the  New  Testament 
had  a  progressive  development;  but  it  is  important 
that  we  understand  what  this  progressive  development 
was.  This  progressive  development  was  simply  an 
unfolding.  Prophecy  in  the  New  Testament,  as  in 
the  Old  Testament,  is  gradually  unfolded.  We  have 
prophecy  in  germ  at  the  gates  of  Eden,  when  it  is 
predicted  that  the  seed  of  the  woman  shall  bruise  the 
serpent's  head.  As  age  after  age  goes  by,  that  initial 
prophecy  is  qualified  and  expanded.  Just  so,  in  the 
New  Testament  revelation,  we  have  the  beginnings  of 
prophecy  in  the  discourse  of  our  Lord  Jesus  with  re- 
gard to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  we  have  the 


THE    EPISTLES    TO    THE    THESSALONIANS  2/5 

unfolding  of  this  revelation  until  at  last  we  get  the 
sum  and  ending  of  it  in  the  Apocalypse,  so  that  the 
revelation  goes  on  until  the  very  last  apostolic  writer 
has  passed  from  earth. 

So  it  is  with  regard  to  doctrine.  We  cannot  get  all 
the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament  from  this  Epistle 
to  the  Thessalonians — the  first  Epistle  that  Paul  wrote, 
as  early  as  the  year  53.  We  must  take  all  the  other 
Epistles  that  Paul  wrote,  down  to  the  year  65  or  68,  in 
order  to  get  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  apostle  Paul,  and 
even  his  Epistles  must  be  supplemented  by  those  of 
Peter,  James,  and  John,  if  we  would  learn  the  complete 
doctrinal  development  of  the  New  Testament. 

Just  so  it  is  with  regard  to  church  polity.  We  have 
the  beginnings  in  the  early  Epistles.  If  you  follow  the 
Epistles  in  the  order  of  time,  you  find  one  thing  after 
another  taught  as  you  go  on,  until  you  get  to  the  last 
Epistle,  when  you  have  a  pretty  fully  developed  out- 
line of  the  organization  and  offices  and  ordinances  of 
the  Christian  church.  This  is  God's  method.  The 
whole  body  of  instruction  with  regard  to  prophecy, 
with  regard  to  doctrine,  and  with  regard  to  church 
polity  was  not  given  as  a  sort  of  lightning  flash  at 
the  first;  there  was  development  in  it;  and  yet  that 
development  reached  its  climax  and  culmination;  all 
that  was  necessary  to  Christian  faith  and  practice  was 
given  and  was  completed  by  the  close  of  the  apostolic 
age;  and  all  development  since  then  is  simply  develop- 
ment in  the  comprehension  and  understanding  of  the 
prophecy,  doctrine,  and  polity  then  given. 

It  is  important  to  observe  a  second  thing,  namely, 
that  this  development  in  prophecy  and  doctrine  and 


2y6  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

church  poHty,  from  stage  to  stage,  was  occasioned  by 
actual  outward  and  inward  needs.  In  other  words, 
Christ  did  not  make  communications  to  the  apostles 
without  reference  to  the  facts  in  the  particular  case, 
and  the  needs  of  the  church  which  they  were  instruct- 
ing; but  the  revelation  in  each  case  was,  step  by  step, 
drawn  forth  by  the  outward  necessities  of  the  churches 
to  which  the  apostle  wrote,  and  then  by  the  inward  ex- 
periences of  the  apostles  themselves.  Side  by  side  with 
this  development  in  prophecy  and  doctrine  and  church 
polity,  we  have  the  external  needs  of  the  churches. 
In  the  church  at  Jerusalem,  for  example,  there  was  too 
much  for  the  apostles  to  do.  They  could  not  serve 
tables,  at  the  same  time  that  they  preached  the  gospel 
and  prayed,  as  they  ought.  That  particular  necessity 
led  to  the  appointment  of  deacons;  the  outward  need 
led  to  that  development  of  church  organization. 

I  find  another  example  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colos- 
sians.  Here  was  a  great  heresy  brewing  that  finally 
culminated  in  the  Gnostics  of  the  second  century ;  that 
false  teaching  in  the  Colossian  church  was  made  by 
the  Holy  Spirit  the  occasion  of  giving  a  magnificent 
exposition  of  the  greatness  of  Christ  and  of  showing 
that  he  is  Head  over  all  things  to  this  universe,  the 
Creator  and  Upholder  of  all.  The  outward  need  of 
the  Colpssians  was  the  occasion  of  unfolding  this  great 
doctrine  of  the  Christian  faith. 

So  we  have  two  parallel  lines.  On  the  one  hand, 
we  have  an  advancing  line  of  prophecy  and  doctrine 
and  church  polity;  and  then,  on  the  other  hand,  we 
have  a  line  of  inward  and  outward  experience,  both 
on  the  part  of  the  church  and  on  the  part  of  the  apostle. 


THE    EPISTLES    TO    THE    THESSALONIANS  277 

There  was  in  those  times,  just  as  there  is  in  these 
later  times,  a  principle  of  false  religion  which  had  to 
have  its  development.  It  seems  to  have  been  God's 
plan  that,  side  by  side  with  the  church,  there  should  be 
the  opportunity  to  misrepresent  truth  and  to  show  the 
error  and  tendency  of  evil.  In  the  New  Testament, 
side  by  side  with  the  doctrine  of  faith  and  of  grace, 
there  is  a  continuous  development  of  the  principle  of 
self-righteousness  and  dependence  upon  works.  "  The 
man  of  sin  "  must  be  revealed.  I  suppose  "  the  man 
of  sin  "  is  essentially  the  same  in  all  ages  and  times. 
The  man  of  sin  is  not  simply  and  only  Roman  Catholi- 
cism. It  is  not  simply  and  only  the  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion by  works.  It  is  all  that  tendency  of  the  human 
heart  to  self-righteousness  and  pride,  in  matters  of 
behef  and  in  matters  of  practice,  which  stands  over 
against  the  doctrine  of  the  grace  of  God,  as  its  bitter 
and  perpetual  antagonist. 

That  principle  of  false  religion  began  its  develop- 
ment then;  but  it  was  hindered  for  a  time,  hindered 
by  the  outward  and  constant  power  of  Roman  govern- 
ment and  organization.  It  reached  its  culmination,  it 
had  its  greatest  power  of  evil  only  when  Roman  law 
and  organization  was  followed  by  hierarchy.  The  Epis- 
tle to  the  Thessalonians  gives  us  the  first  of  the  prophe- 
cies of  this  mighty  power  of  the  world  that  is  to  rise 
as  Antichrist  and  to  oppose  the  kingdom  of  Jesus 
Christ,  our  Lord.  Over  against  this  prophecy  of  the 
coming  opposition  to  the  kingdom  of  God  there  stands 
another  prophecy  that  must  give  us  comfort,  just  as 
it  gave  the  Thessalonians  comfort  then;  and  that  is 
the  prophecy  of  the  coming  of  our  Lord  in  judgment, 


2/8  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

to  put  down  evil  and  to  set  up  righteousness  in  the 
earth.  Our  Lord  is  to  come.  Paul,  in  the  early  part  of 
his  life,  did  not  know  when  that  coming  would  be,  and 
thought  perhaps  that  it  might  take  place  in  his  own 
day.  But  he  never  made  this  a  matter  of  teaching  to 
the  churches,  and  before  his  death  the  false  impression 
was  dispelled.  He  came  to  see  that  the  time  of  Christ's 
coming  was  farther  on.  Age  after  age  has  come  since 
then,  and  age  after  age  has  been  watching  and  wait- 
ing for  the  coming  of  the  Lord.  We  are  to  watch,  as 
those  to  whom  the  Master  may  come  at  any  time ;  and 
we  are  to  be  always  ready.  Somewhere  in  the  future, 
we  know  not  when,  and  we  know  not  where,  Christ  is 
to  come  in  clouds  of  heaven,  in  power  and  great  glory, 
to  judge  the  world;  and,  for  us  Christians  to-day,  just 
as  it  was  in  the  times  when  these  Epistles  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians  were  written,  the  coming  of  Christ  is  the  great 
comfort  and  hope  of  the  church.  Our  Lord  has  gone 
into  a  far  country  to  receive  a  kingdom  and  to  return ; 
we  have  been  entrusted  with  our  several  talents;  we 
are  to  employ  and  increase  them  until  he  comes.  When 
he  comes,  he  will  bring  us  before  him  to  render  up  our 
account.  Let  us  be  faithful  to  him,  looking  for  and 
hastening,  says  the  apostle,  the  coming  of  the  day  of 
God.  By  our  faithfulness,  by  our  zeal,  by  our  Chris- 
tian labor  and  endeavors,  we  may  make  it  possible 
for  the  Lord  to  come  the  sooner  and  to  complete  his 
work  in  the  earth.  In  the  last  chapter  of  the  book  of 
Revelation  we  have  the  words,  "  Behold,  I  come 
quickly  " ;  and  the  answer  of  the  church  to-day,  just 
as  it  was  the  answer  of  the  church  then,  is  "  Even  so, 
Lord  Jesus,  come  quickly." 


THE  EPISTLES  TO  TIMOTHY  AND  TITUS 

The  two  Epistles  to  Timothy  and  the  Epistle  to  Titus 
are  called  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  because  they  were 
written  by  Paul  to  Timothy  and  to  Titus,  not  as 
friends  simply,  nor  as  individual  Christians  simply, 
but  as  pastors  of  the  church  of  God.  They  were  writ- 
ten for  the  purpose  of  instructing  these  ministers  in 
the  proper  m.ethods  of  pastoral  work. 

The  three  Epistles  have  a  common  character.  The 
subjects  of  all  are  very  much  the  same.  They  were 
written  in  the  years  64  and  65,  after  Paul's  release 
from  his  first  Roman  imprisonment,  and  not  long  be- 
fore his  martyrdom.  As  the  Epistles  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians  were  the  first  that  Paul  wrote,  so  these  Pastoral 
Epistles  were  the  last  of  his  writing.  They  are  writ- 
ten under  the  shadow  of  approaching  death.  They 
are  written  by  "  Paul,  the  aged  " ;  by  one  not  more 
than  sixty  years  of  age,  yet  old  before  his  time  because 
of  the  shipwrecks  and  the  scourgings  he  has  suffered 
for  Christ.  As  he  nears  his  end,  he  writes  with 
pathetic  earnestness,  and  in  a  style  somewhat  differ- 
ent from  that  of  his  earlier  writings ;  and  these  things 
give  to  the  Pastoral  Epistles  a  peculiar  interest.  Let 
me  say  a  word  or  two,  first  of  all,  with  regard  to  the 
persons  to  whom  they  were  addressed:  Timothy,  on 
the  one  hand;  Titus,  on  the  other. 

Timothy  was  a  native  of  Lystra,  in  Asia  Minor,  a 
city  where  there  was  no  Jewish  synagogue.     A  place 

279 


28o  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

that  had  no  Jewish  synagogue  was  a  place  where  there 
were  very  few  Jews;  for,  so  soon  as  there  were  ten 
heads  of  famihes  who  were  Jews,  it  was  the  custom 
to  establish  a  synagogue.  We  conclude  that  in  Lystra 
the  number  of  those  who  professed  faith  in  the  true 
God  must  have  been  very  small. 

At  Lystra,  Paul,  in  his  first  missionary  journey, 
preached  to  the  people,  and  some  were  converted  to 
Christ.  It  is  not  until  the  second  missionary  journey, 
some  six  years  later,  that  we  read  of  Timothy.  Timo- 
thy was  the  son  of  a  Jewish  mother  and  of  a  Greek 
father.  His  Greek  father  must  have  been  living,  one 
would  think,  at  the  time  when  Timothy  came  under  the 
influence  of  Paul ;  for,  at  that  time,  he  was  still  uncir- 
cumcised.  Timothy  had  been  instructed  in  the  Scrip- 
tures by  his  mother  and  by  his  grandmother ;  and  that 
early  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures  seems  to  have  drawn 
Paul  to  him,  and  to  have  qualified  Timothy  for  his  work 
of  preaching  the  gospel.  It  was  certainly  much  to  the 
credit  of  Timothy's  mother  and  grandmother  that,  in 
a  town  where  there  were  no  privileges  of  public  wor- 
ship, he  should  have  been  so  faithfully  instructed  in  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament.  There  was  some- 
thing in  his  mixed  descent  which  qualified  Timothy  for 
the  work  to  which  the  apostle  Paul  called  him.  Being 
partly  Jew  and  partly  Gentile,  he  had  a  peculiar  fitness 
for  the  work  of  preaching  the  gospel  in  a  community 
composed  partly  of  Jews  and  partly  of  Gentiles. 

After  six  years  Paul  came  back  to  L3^stra,  and  found 
Timothy  well  known  and  highly  esteemed  in  the 
church;  found,  moreover,  that  Timothy  had  natural 
gifts,   in  addition  to  his  training  in  the   Scriptures, 


THE    EPISTLES    TO    TIMOTHY    AND    TITUS  281 

which  quaHfied  him  to  be  Paul's  companion.  Timothy 
seems  to  have  been  a  young  man  of  extreme  and  al- 
most effeminate  sensitiveness  of  organization.  This 
made  him  sympathetic,  and  gave  him  access  to  many 
classes  of  persons.  His  sensitive  and  conscientious 
nature  tended  toward  a  sort  of  asceticism,  against 
which  Paul  warns  him.  And  yet  there  were  many  quali- 
ties that  drew  him  to  Paul ;  and  he  enjoyed,  during  the 
seventeen  years  in  which  he  was  Paul's  companion,  the 
constant  instruction  and  affection  of  the  apostle. 

Titus  was  a  person  of  very  different  mental  make- 
up from  Timothy.  He  was  a  man  of  sterner  stuff. 
Strange  to  say,  Titus  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles.  It  is  only  in  Paul's  Epistles  that  we  learn 
anything  about  him.  But  the  various  allusions  to 
Titus,  and  the  various  missions  upon  which  he  was 
sent,  seem  to  indicate  that  he  was  a  person  of  stalwart 
mind  and  character.  Titus  was  probably  a  native  of 
Antioch.  It  is  from  Antioch  that  he  goes  to  Jerusalem, 
with  Paul  and  Barnabas.  Perhaps  he  goes  as  a  repre- 
sentative of  the  Gentile  Christians;  and  in  that  Apos- 
tolic Council,  to  which  he  was  a  delegate,  he  secures 
the  liberty  of  the  Gentiles.  They  are  not  to  be  put 
under  the  restrictions  of  circumcision.  Throughout 
his  w^hole  life,  Titus  is  a  living  protest  against  the  doc- 
trine that  men,  in  order  to  become  Christians,  must 
first  become  Jews. 

The  second  time  when  we  meet  with  Titus  is  in  con- 
nection with  the  letter  which  the  apostle  Paul  writes 
to  the  church  at  Corinth,  commanding  them  to  excom- 
municate the  incestuous  person.  Titus'  second  mis- 
sion seems  to  have  had  for  its  object  to  insure  the 


282  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

obedience  of  the  Corinthian  church  to  the  directions 
of  Paul — a  mission  which  could  hardly  have  been  en- 
trusted to  any  but  a  man  of  great  discretion  and 
decision. 

Again,  we  find  that  Titus  is  left  behind  in  the 
Island  of  Crete,  to  complete  the  apostle's  work  and  to 
organize  the  churches,  after  Paul  and  he  had  preached 
the  gospel  there.  When  we  remember  what  the  Cre- 
tans were,  it  is  very  easy  to  see  that  this  was  a  task  of 
no  small  difficulty,  and  one  which  needed  something 
more  than  a  person  of  kind  disposition  and  gentle 
conduct. 

Last  of  all,  Titus  goes  to  Dalmatia.  Tradition  says 
that  Titus  was  the  apostle  of  Dalmatia.  Dalmatia 
was  by  no  means  a  civilized  region  at  that  time;  this 
seems  like  a  mission  to  outside  barbarians;  it  required 
not  only  zeal,  but  organizing  ability. 

These  are  all  the  intimations  we  have  with  regard 
to  Titus,  and  the  work  that  Titus  did,  although  we 
have  occasional  allusions  to  him  in  Paul's  Epistles,  the 
meaning  of  which  I  think  we  shall  see  a  little  farther 
on,  when  we  consider  the  large  amount  of  instruction 
which  this  Epistle  contains. 

Here,  then,  were  two  persons  of  very  different  train- 
ing and  influence.  On  the  one  hand,  a  person  of  kindly 
sympathy,  of  almost  feminine  mind  and  character ;  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  a  man  of  strong  will  and  vigorous 
intellect.  Yet  both  have  their  gifts  of  leadership,  and 
we  can  see  that  they  are  wisely  chosen  as  the  two  per- 
sons to  whom  Paul  addresses  his  Pastoral  Epistles. 
It  is  as  if  he  selected  two  of  the  most  opposite  types 
of  character,  in  order  that  In  them  he  might  find  the 


THE    EPISTLES    TO    TIMOTHY    AND    TITUS  283 

representatives  of  the  whole  ministry  of  Christ  that  was 
to  arise  and  preach  and  work  to  the  end  of  time. 

The  dates  of  these  Epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus 
are  difficult  to  determine  with  exactness.  I  can  justify 
the  dates  which  I  have  assigned — during  the  years  64 
and  65 — only  by  telling  something  of  Paul's  story. 

For  many  years  it  was  thought  that  we  must  fix  the 
date  of  these  Epistles  some  time  before  the  close  of 
Paul's  imprisonment  as  it  is  narrated  in  the  Acts;  but 
there  are  very  great  difficulties  connected  with  this 
method  of  explaining  their  authorship.  There  seems 
to  be  no  place  in  Paul's  history,  up  to  the  time  of  the 
close  of  that  imprisonment,  where  we  can  put  the  Epis- 
tles to  Timothy  and  Titus. 

The  First  Epistle  to  Timothy,  for  example,  seems  to 
be  written  while  Timothy  remains  in  Ephesus  during  a 
journey  of  Paul  into  Macedonia.  But  there  is  no  one 
of  the  journeys  of  Paul  narrated  in  the  Acts  which  the 
authorship  of  these  Epistles  will  fit;  for,  in  one  of 
these  journeys,  Paul  took  Timothy  with  him,  and  there 
are  insuperable  difficulties  connected  with  the  other 
journeys.  Our  conclusion  must  be  that  these  Epistles 
to  Timothy  and  Titus  were  not  written  during  the 
period  that  preceded  the  end  of  Paul's  first  imprison- 
ment at  Rome,  but  must  have  been  written  after  the 
close  of  that  imprisonment. 

We  have  no  information  with  regard  to  the  close 
of  that  imprisonment,  unless  we  get  it  from  these 
Epistles  themselves.  It  would  appear  that  Paul  was 
successful  in  his  first  appeal  to  Caesar;  that,  at  the 
close  of  the  stay  in  Rome,  which  is  narrated  in  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  he  was  released;  and  that,  after  his 


284  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

release,  he  executed  a  purpose  which  he  had  intimated 
a  long  time  before,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  to  go 
into  Spain  and  preach  the  gospel  there.  In  the  year 
61  this  first  imprisonment  of  Paul's  probably  ended; 
and  we  may  most  reasonably  conclude  that  the  two  fol- 
lowing years,  the  year  62  and  the  year  63,  were  spent  at 
what  Clement,  the  church  Father,  calls  the  ends  of  the 
earth,  or  in  Spain ;  that  Paul  preached  the  gospel  there 
in  comparative  seclusion,  since  we  have  no  Epistle  dated 
from  that  time  of  the  apostle's  life.  After  his  im- 
prisonment it  was  possibly  the  most  salutary  thing  for 
him  to  remain  in  comparative  quiet,  far  away  from 
Rome  and  from  the  notice  of  the  Roman  authorities. 
After  those  two  years  in  Spain  we  may  believe  that 
the  apostle  went  with  Titus  to  Crete,  and  there,  for  a 
year  perhaps,  engaged  in  missionary  work,  founding 
and  instructing  churches ;  that  from  Crete  he  took  his 
departure  with  Timothy,  leaving  Titus  upon  the 
ground  to  finish  the  work  he  had  done;  and  that  he 
then  accomplished  what  had  been  his  purpose  for  a 
long  time  (as  we  find  by  his  early  Epistles),  visited 
the  church  at  Colosse,  left  Trophimus  sick  at  Mile- 
tus, stayed  for  some  time  in  Ephesus  with  Timothy, 
left  him  behind  to  be  his  representative,  and  went 
northward  through  Troas  to  Philippi,  having  promised 
the  Philippian  church  to  visit  them.  From  Philippi, 
three  years  perhaps  after  his  first  imprisonment  at 
Rome  terminated,  Paul  wrote  the  First  Epistle  to 
Timothy,  while  Timothy  was  pastor  of  the  church  at 
Ephesus.  Leaving  Philippi,  he  goes  southward  to 
Corinth,  and  at  Corinth  he  leaves  Erastus.  Then  he 
goes  into  Macedonia  to  Nicopolis ;  and  from  Nicopolis 


THE    EPISTLES    TO    TIMOTHY    AND    TITUS  285 

he  writes  the  Epistle  to  Titus,  who  is  still  in  Crete, 
giving  directions  in  regard  to  the  conduct  of  his  pas- 
toral work  there,  and  the  organization  of  the  Cretan 
churches. 

At  Nicopolis,  according  to  tradition,  Paul  was  again 
arrested  upon  the  charge  that  he  was  the  leader  of 
the  Christians  throughout  the  world.  The  attitude  of 
the  Roman  authorities  toward  the  Christian  faith  had 
become  more  rigorous.  Paul  was  taken  to  Rome,  and 
at  Rome  he  suffered,  not  the  very  tolerable  confinement 
which  characterized  his  first  captivity,  but  a  much  more 
painful  imprisonment. 

In  his  first  appearance  before  Caesar  he  appears  to 
have  been  successful,  although  no  one  stayed  by  him. 
It  required  courage  as  well  as  Christian  principle  to 
stand  by  the  apostle,  when  standing  by  him  might  in- 
volve a  sharing  in  his  martyrdom.  In  his  second  letter 
to  Timothy  he  says  that  only  Luke  was  left  with  him. 
The  friends  that  were  about  him  in  his  first  captivity 
were  absent  now. 

The  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy,  written  during 
this  second  Roman  imprisonment,  has  an  entirely  dif- 
ferent air  from  the  First  Epistle,  which  was  written  to 
Timothy  from  Philippi,  and  from  the  Epistle  to  the 
Philippians,  in  which  he  anticipates  release.  He  seems 
now  to  anticipate  a  speedy  departure  from  the  world; 
and  in  that  Roman  prison,  in  a  very  pathetic  and  it 
seems  to  me  a  very  affecting  way,  he  writes  to  Timo- 
thy, as  he  had  previously  written  to  Titus  at  Nicopolis, 
to  bring  to  him  certain  things  he  was  in  need  of.  The 
cold  of  the  prison  demanded  a  greater  amount  of  cloth- 
ing than  he  had,  "  Bring  the  cloak  I  left  at  Troas." 


286  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

He  also  had  need  of  the  books,  and  especially  the 
parchments,  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  or  possibly 
blank  parchments  upon  which  he  might  write  some- 
thing still  to  the  churches  he  was  soon  to  leave  behind, 
and  for  whose  welfare  he  was  solicitous. 

Here  are  evidences  that  the  apostle  was  brought 
to  a  state  of  real  need,  and  that  little  text  about  bring- 
ing the  cloak,  which  has  seemed  to  some  so  trivial  as 
almost  to  constitute  an  objection  to  the  inspiration  of 
the  writing,  seems  to  me  to  have  in  it  a  great  deal  of 
suggestion.  It  is  worthy  to  be  a  text  of  a  whole  ser- 
mon. It  indicates  that  the  apostle  Paul  was  brought 
into  great  straits ;  and  in  the  urgent  request  that  Timo- 
thy will  come  to  him  quickly,  we  seem  to  see  the  im- 
pression that  the  end  was  drawing  near.  He  wished 
to  give  Timothy  his  last  instructions  and  to  send  his 
dying  wishes  to  the  churches. 

And  so  the  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy,  the  last 
Epistle  we  have  from  the  hand  of  the  apostle,  was 
written  from  a  Roman  dungeon ;  and  only  a  little  after, 
a  file  of  Roman  soldiers  marched  out  with  Paul  upon 
the  Ostian  way,  dug  there  a  grave,  severed  his  head 
from  his  body,  and  buried  him  on  the  spot. 

The  object  of  these  Epistles,  as  I  remarked  at  the 
beginning,  is  common  to  them  all.  Since  the  mission 
of  the  churches  is  the  same,  and  the  needs  of  the 
churches  the  same,  Paul  writes  in  very  much  the  same 
strain  to  them  all. 

Two  things  the  churches  were  especially  in  danger 
of,  and  Paul  did  all  he  could  do  to  counteract  these 
dangers.  First,  there  was  the  danger  arising  from 
false    doctrine.      Paul    had   been    absent    from   these 


THE    EPISTLES    TO    TIMOTHY    AND    TITUS  287 

churches  for  several  years;  he  had  not  been  able  to 
give  them  continuous  instruction;  he  had  been  com- 
pelled to  commit  his  work  to  others.  During  that 
time,  Judaizing  teachers  had  crept  in;  they  were  pro- 
pounding their  endless  genealogies;  and  the  germs 
which  afterward  developed  into  Gnosticism  were  all 
felt  in  each  one  of  these  churches  of  Christ. 

In  the  book  of  Revelation  the  Epistle  to  the  angel 
of  the  church  at  Ephesus  describes  the  same  errors 
and  dangers  against  which  Paul  warns  Timothy.  The 
apostle  John,  only  a  little  later,  finds  full  grown  the 
errors  and  dangers  which  previously  caused  sorrow  to 
the  apostle  Paul.  Timothy  was  pastor  at  Ephesus,  and 
Paul  addressed  him.  There  were  Hymenaeus  and  Phile- 
tus  who  concerning  the  truth  had  erred,  saying  that 
the  resurrection  was  past  already.  They  spiritualized 
the  resurrection,  declaring  that  at  death  the  soul  en- 
ters at  once  into  its  loftier  state ;  that  that  loftier  state 
is  ethereal;  and  that  the  body  does  not  rise  at  all. 
These  errors  the  apostle  had  first  of  all  to  meet,  not, 
as  in  the  Epistles  written  during  his  first  captivity  at 
Rome  to  the  Colossians  and  Ephesians  and  Philippians, 
by  an  elaborate  expounding  of  any  single  Christian 
doctrine,  but  as  an  old  and  tired  man  would  meet 
them,  by  referring  once  more  to  the  first  principles  of 
the  gospel  of  Christ. 

It  is  as  much  as  to  say  that  all  we  need  to  counteract 
this  heresy  is  to  return  to  Jesus,  the  Saviour,  and  to 
learn  once  more  the  A,  B,  C  of  the  Christian  faith.  It 
is  the  old  man  who,  in  a  more  broken  way  than  in  his 
first  Epistles,  with  nothing  like  the  sustained  eloquence 
which  we  find  in  the  Epistles  to  the  Ephesians  and  the 


288  THE    BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Colossians,  gives  his  final  instructions  to  those  who 
have  under  their  care  the  church  of  Christ. 

There  was  a  second  difficulty  among  these  churches 
to  which  the  apostle  was  writing,  through  their  repre- 
sentatives, and  that  was  a  difficulty  with  regard  to 
church  organization.  Now  church  organization  was  a 
matter  of  development.  There  was  not  so  much 
church  organization  at  the  beginning  as  there  was  in 
later  days.  That  was  ordained  by  God.  One  thing 
after  another  was  provided  as  the  need  of  it  arose. 
Before  we  get  to  the  end  of  the  apostle's  teaching  we 
find  a  complete  outline  of  church  organization ;  and  in 
these  Epistles  we  find  more  in  regard  to  church  offices 
and  church  government  than  we  find  anywhere  else. 
Here  are  depicted  the  qualifications  for  the  Christian 
ministry.  We  have  here  the  qualifications  for  the 
deaconship.  We  have  directions  with  regard  to  disci- 
pline of  those  who  are  heretics  and  of  those  who  are 
sensual.  These  instructions  which  Paul  sent  to  his 
representatives  in  the  ministry  have  been  of  great  im- 
portance in  the  determination  of  church  polity,  during 
all  these  later  times. 

The  style  of  these  Epistles  is  different  In  some  re- 
spects from  the  style  of  Paul's  earlier  writings.  It  has 
been  a  puzzle,  to  those  who  have  examined  the  Epis- 
tles from  a  literary  point  of  view,  to  know  how  the 
same  person  could  have  written,  for  example,  both 
the  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonlans  and  the  Epistles  to 
Timothy  and  Titus.  .But  you  are  familiar  with  the 
fact  that  a  man's  style  changes  as  he  advances  in 
years.  When  George  William  Curtis  wrote  his  Potl- 
phar  papers,  many  years  ago,  there  was  a  lingering 


THE    EPISTLES    TO    TIMOTHY    AND    TITUS  289 

sweetness  long  drawn  out,  of  which  Curtis  after- 
ward became  incapable.  If  one  should  read  the  Poti- 
phar  papers  now,  and  should  mark  the  infinite  deli- 
cacy and  the  excess  of  sentiment  which  characterizes 
them,  he  would  think  it  almost  impossible  that  the 
same  man  could  have  written  the  calm  and  statesman- 
like articles  of  "  Harper's  Weekly."  And  yet  it  is 
the  same  man.  And  so  Paul,  from  the  early  part  of  his 
life  to  the  latter  part  of  his  life,  must  have  undergone 
a  very  great  change  in  this  matter  of  style.  He  had 
had  experience  of  the  world,  he  had  mingled  with  all 
sorts  of  men,  he  had  passed  through  all  sorts  of  suffer- 
ing; and  now,  toward  the  close  of  his  life,  there  is  a 
terseness  and  incisiveness  in  his  writing,  and  an  ad- 
vanced and  enlarged  Christian  experience,  such  as  we 
do  not  find  in  the  earlier  Epistles.  His  style  changed 
with  his  subject  and  his  circumstances,  as  the  style  of 
every  practical  writer  does. 

Paul  had  an  exceedingly  mobile,  an  exceedingly  im- 
pressible, and  an  exceedingly  fertile  mind.  Paul  was 
one  who  could  take  in  as  well  as  give  out.  To  the 
end  of  his  life  he  was  always  learning;  and  as  he  writes 
these  private  letters,  for  these  you  must  notice,  unlike 
the  earlier  Epistles  of  which  we  have  spoken,  are  let- 
ters to  individuals,  he  very  naturally  writes  in  a  dif- 
ferent style  from  that  which  characterized  the  letters 
written  to  the  churches.  A  private  letter  is  very  dif- 
ferent from  an  official  communication;  and  a  letter 
of  direction  to  individuals  is  very  different  from  a  doc- 
trinal treatise,  such  as  we  find  in  the  Epistles  to  the 
Romans  and  to  the  Ephesians.  These  considerations 
are  sufficient  to  account  for  whatever  difference  of 


290  THE    BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

style  we  find  between  Paul's  early  Epistles  and  his 
later  ones. 

How  much  we  should  lack  if  these  Epistles  to  Timo- 
thy and  Titus  were  taken  from  us!  They  are  the 
natural,  and  one  might  almost  say  the  necessary,  sup- 
plement to  our  other  knowledge  of  Paul's  life.  If  all 
that  we  knew  with  regard  to  the  apostle's  teaching 
ended  with  the  Epistles  to  the  Ephesians,  the  Philip- 
pians,  and  the  Colossians,  there  would  be  a  very  large 
part  of  Paul's  life  and  heart  which  would  be  still  un- 
known to  us.  There  are  personal  experiences  here  of 
which  we  should  have  no  record  if  these  Epistles  were 
taken  from  us.  How  did  Paul  feel  as  the  shadows  of 
approaching  death  began  to  creep  upon  him?  How  did 
Paul  look  forward  to  the  end  of  all  things  earthly?  It 
is  a  delightful  thing  to  me  to  have  related  here,  in 
Paul's  own  words,  an  experience  something  like  that 
of  Christian  in  the  "  Pilgrim's  Progress,"  when  he  is 
just  about  to  step  down  into  the  cold  river  which  sepa- 
rates him  from  the  City  of  God  on  the  other  side.  "  I 
am  now  ready  to  be  offered,  and  the  time  of  my  de- 
parture is  at  hand.  I  have  fought  a  good  fight,  I  have 
finished  my  course,  I  have  kept  the  faith;  henceforth 
there  is  laid  up  for  me  a  crown  of  righteousness  which 
the  Lord,  the  righteous  Judge,  shall  give  me  at  that 
day."  Here  the  apostle,  after  all  his  sufferings  and 
trials,  and  in  the  very  face  of  approaching  death,  is 
uttering  these  calm,  confident  words.  This  is  a  bless- 
ing to  the  whole  church  of  Christ;  it  is  a  blessing  to 
every  one  of  us,  because  it  gives  us  warrant  for  taking 
these  same  words  upon  our  lips  when  we  come  to  die. 

There  is  instruction  with  regard  to  the  conduct  of 


THE    EPISTLES    TO    TIMOTHY    AND    TITUS  29I 

affairs  in  the  church  of  Christ,  which  we  should  lack 
if  these  Epistles  were  taken  from  us.  Paul  had  great 
anxiety  with  regard  to  the  future.  He  wanted  to  put 
into  other  hands  the  work  of  preaching  the  gospel  and 
of  sustaining  the  church;  and  that  he  does  in  these 
Epistles.  He  charges  Timothy  to  commit  this  same 
gospel  which  he  preached  to  faithful  men  who  should 
be  able  to  teach  others  also.  Paul  was  a  whole  theo- 
logical seminary  by  himself.  He  desired  to  raise  up 
and  instruct  those  who  should  afterward  teach  the 
word  of  God.  There  is  no  indication  that  Paul  felt  de- 
pressed with  regard  to  the  past  or  future.  When 
Luther  came  to  this  point  in  his  life,  where  death  be- 
gan to  draw  nigh,  great  man  as  he  was  and  great  work 
as  he  had  done,  he  felt  as  if  his  life  had  been  spent  in 
vain,  and  as  if  everything  he  had  accomplished  was 
about  to  be  swept  away.  Great  discouragement  came 
upon  him.  In  such  a  state  of  mind  as  that,  his  life 
ended.  In  the  case  of  Paul  we  have  a  better  illustra- 
tion of  faith  in  Christ  than  is  given  by  Luther.  Paul 
in  his  Roman  prison,  with  the  certainty  that  he  was 
soon  to  be  taken  away,  and  with  no  one  in  all  the  world 
to  take  his  place,  still  feels  hopeful  with  regard  to  the 
church  of  God.  His  only  anxiety  is  to  commend  to 
others  the  work  he  is  so  soon  to  lay  down. 

There  is  something  very  interesting  in  Paul's  gravi- 
tating again  toward  Rome  after  his  first  imprisonment 
there.  It  seems  as  if  there  was  a  tremendous  magnet 
in  that  capital  of  the  world  that  drew  him  there.  If 
the  tradition  be  true  that  Peter  also  suffered  martyr- 
dom there,  then  both  the  apostles — Peter  and  Paul — 
felt  as  if  the  great  thing  to  do  was  to  conquer  the 


292  THE    BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Eternal  City  for  Christ.  Although  Paul  has  been  im- 
prisoned there,  and  has  been  in  danger  of  martyrdom 
there,  he  still  cannot  rest  until  he  gets  back  to  Rome ;  he 
will  dash  himself  during  his  last  hours  against  that 
stone  wall  of  Imperial  Rome,  with  the  assurance  that 
Christ  is  able  to  strike  that  wall  until  it  falls ;  and  so  in 
Rome  he  writes  his  last  letter,  the  Second  Epistle  to 
Timothy. 

Paul  tells  us  in  this  Epistle  that  what  we  have  our- 
selves received  we  must  commit  to  faithful  men,  that 
they  may  be  able  to  teach  others  also.  In  other  words, 
every  one  of  us  has  a  responsibility  for  the  extension 
and  continuance  of  the  preaching  of  Christ's  truth  after 
we  are  dead.  It  is  our  business  to  see  that  the  gospel 
is  preached  and  published  to  the  generations  that  are 
yet  to  come. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  PHILEMON 

Philemon  was  perhaps  a  native,  and  certainly  a  resi- 
dent, of  the  city  of  Colosse,  one  of  the  Colossian  Chris- 
tians, therefore,  to  whom  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians 
was  written.  Colosse  was  a  city  in  the  southwest  of 
Asia  Minor,  upon  the  banks  of  the  river  Lycus. 

Philemon  apparently  was  a  convert  of  the  apostle 
Paul,  though  Paul  had  never  made  a  visit  to  Colosse. 
It  would  almost  seem  as  if,  led  by  trade,  he  had  visited 
Ephesus,  perhaps  with  Epaphras,  and  there  come  under 
the  influence  of  the  apostle's  preaching  during  Paul's 
two  or  three  years'  stay  in  that  great  city.  Being  con- 
verted to  Christ,  he  seconded  the  efforts  of  Epaphras 
to  preach  the  gospel  to  his  fellow  townsmen ;  and  being 
a  man  of  wealth  and  hospitable  instincts,  he  seems  to 
have  opened  his  house  for  the  meetings  of  the  church. 
So  the  apostle,  in  the  Epistle,  sends  his  salutations  to 
the  church  that  is  in  that  house. 

Some  have  thought,  from  a  word  that  is  used  in  the 
Epistle,  namely,  the  word  "  partner,"  that  the  rela- 
tions between  Paul  and  Philemon  were  partly  relations 
of  business;  and  there  is  a  curious  use  of  commercial 
or  business  terms  in  the  Epistle.  A  noted  English  in- 
terpreter, by  the  name  of  Plumptre,  has  actually  writ- 
ten an  essay  upon  the  apostle  Paul  as  a  man  of  busi- 
ness, and  has  put  together  a  number  of  allusions  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  in  Paul's  various  Epistles, 
which  seem  to  show  that  the  apostle  was  not  at  all 

293 


294  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

ignorant  of  business  life.  He  thinks  that,  during  those 
two  or  three  years  in  Ephesus,  when  the  apostle  Paul 
was  dependent,  as  he  ordinarily  was,  upon  the  labor 
of  his  hands,  he  possibly  made  a  sort  of  business  con- 
nection with  Philemon;  that  they  had  business  trans- 
actions together ;  and  that  when  Paul  writes  to  him  as 
his  partner,  he  is  using  that  term  in  a  business  sense. 
All  this  is  somewhat  precarious,  and  we  may  better  con- 
clude that  the  relation  between  Paul  and  Philemon  was 
that  of  partnership  in  the  Christian  faith  rather  than 
of  partnership  in  commercial  enterprises.  At  any  rate, 
it  seems  that  Philemon  was  a  fellow  helper  or  fellow 
laborer  of  the  apostle's,  for  Paul  applies  this  term  to 
him  in  the  Epistle.  Philemon  was  evidently  engaged  in 
the  spreading  of  the  gospel,  and  did  everything  he 
could  to  advance  the  cause  of  Christ. 

In  the  salutations  of  the  Epistle  to  Philemon,  two 
other  persons  are  mentioned.  One  of  them  is  Apphia  ; 
and  Apphia  was  without  question,  I  think,  the  wife  of 
Philemon.  The  third  who  is  mentioned  is  Archippus; 
and  since  both  these  names  are  mentioned  before  the 
church  is  mentioned  that  worshiped  in  their  house,  it 
seems  altogether  possible  that  Archippus  was  their  son. 
So  we  have  three  members  of  this  Christian  family 
brought  to  our  attention :  Philemon,  Apphia  his  wife, 
and  Archippus  their  son. 

Archippus  seems  to  have  held  some  sort  of  official 
position  in  one  of  the  churches  of  the  neighborhood, 
probably  the  church  of  Laodicea,  which  was  in  walking 
distance  of  Colosse;  and  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colos- 
sians  we  have  exhortations  to  Archippus  that  he  take 
heed  with  regard  to  the  office  which  he  held,  to  fulfil 


THE   EPISTLE   TO    PHILEMON  295 

it  It  is  possible  that  Archippus  was  the  elder,  or 
presbyter,  or  pastor,  of  the  neighboring  church  of  Laod- 
icea,  although  he  may  not  have  resided  there.  Since 
he  was  the  son  of  Philemon  and  Apphia,  and  saluta- 
tions of  the  apostle  were  extended  to  him  in  this  letter 
to  Philemon,  it  would  seem  that  he  still  lived  with  his 
parents  at  Colosse. 

There  was  another  member  of  this  family  whom  I 
have  not  yet  mentioned.  With  these  three,  Philemon, 
his  wife  Apphia,  and  their  son  Archippus,  that  house- 
hold included  also  a  man  of  the  lowest  social  stratum — 
the  slave  Onesimus.  Onesimus  was  not  only  a  slave; 
he  was  also  a  thief  and  a  runaway.  Apparently  finding 
that  the  burdens  and  responsibilities  of  his  position  as 
slave  were  irksome  to  him,  he  fled  from  Colosse  and 
from  this  relation  of  servitude ;  and  in  order  to  provide 
the  means  of  his  journeying  he  robbed  his  master,  and 
so  made  his  way  to  Rome.  It  may  seem  strange  that  a 
slave  like  Onesimus  should  have  gone  so  far  from  his 
master  and  from  his  town;  but  we  must  remember 
that  a  city  like  Rome,  where  all  nations  congregated, 
furnished  the  very  best  hiding-place  for  a  criminal. 
Rome  was  the  easiest  place  to  get  at;  for,  as  the  old 
proverb  reads,  "  All  roads  lead  to  Rome " ;  and  at 
Rome  he  might  most  easily  find  employment.  In 
Rome,  moreover,  there  was  the  most  to  see  and  the 
largest  experience  of  the  world  to  be  gained,  so  that 
there  were  many  reasons  why  this  runaway  slave 
should  have  made  his  way  as  quickly  as  possible  to  the 
Imperial  City. 

But  he  made  his  way  to  the  Imperial  City  only  to 
be  apprehended  by  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  to  be  made 


296  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

the  Lord's  freedman.  How  it  was  that,  in  the  city  of 
Rome,  he  was  brought  into  contact  with  the  apostle 
Paul  we  do  not  know.  The  story  is  not  told  us.  Per- 
haps hunger  drove  him  to  Paul  for  help.  Perhaps  con- 
science drove  him  to  Paul  for  consolation.  Perhaps 
Epaphras  of  Colosse,  who  was  visiting  Rome  as  a 
helper  of  the  apostle  Paul,  met  him  in  the  street  and 
persuaded  Onesimus  to  accompany  him  to  the  house 
where  the  apostle  was  in  surveillance,  chained  to  a 
Roman  soldier.  Some  way  or  other,  Onesimus,  the 
runaway  slave,  was  brought  into  the  presence  of  the 
apostle  Paul ;  and  Paul  did  not  disdain  to  preach  to  him 
the  gospel,  just  as  he  preached  it  to  the  low  and  the 
high,  people  of  all  ranks  and  all  conditions;  and  the 
result  of  it  seems  to  have  been  very  quickly  that  Ones- 
imus became  a  convert  to  the  gospel  of  Christ,  that  his 
heart  was  changed  and  his  whole  temper  and  spirit 
and  purpose  were  altered.  Now  he  desired  nothing  so 
much  as  to  make  recompense  for  the  past  and  to  begin 
an  entirely  new  Christian  life.  Paul  seems  to  have  been 
testing  the  reality  of  his  conversion  for  a  little  while, 
for  he  declares  in  this  very  Epistle  that  Onesimus  has 
been  very  helpful  to  him. 

There  were  many  services  that  Onesimus  could  ren- 
der, and  Paul  commends  him  for  those  services;  de- 
clares that  he  is  loath  to  part  with  him ;  he  would  much 
prefer  to  keep  him.  But  there  were  many  reasons  why 
Onesimus  should  not  remain  in  Rome.  Roman  slavery 
was  an  awe-inspiring  institution,  and  many  a  slave  was 
crucified  for  smaller  offenses  than  that  which  Onesimus 
had  committed.  Paul  evidently  thought  that,  for  Ones- 
imus' sake,  and  for  the  gospel's   sake,  it  was  desirable 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    PHILEMON  SQ/ 

that  the  gulf  between  him  and  his  master  should  be 
filled  up ;  and  so,  as  Tychicus  was  going  back  to  Ephe- 
sus  and  Colosse,  and  was  to  bear  a  letter  to  the  church 
in  Colosse,  Paul  sent  Onesimus  back  with  him.  Into 
Onesimus'  hands  he  placed  what  one  might  call  a  letter 
of  introduction  and  commendation  to  his  former 
master,  urging  that  master  to  receive  him  kindly  and 
in  a  Christian  way,  for  Paul  the  apostle's  sake.  So, 
in  the  year  6i,  perhaps  five  years  after  the  first  founda- 
tion of  the  church  at  Colosse,  Paul,  in  his  first  Roman 
imprisonment,  writes  the  Epistle  to  Philemon.  Onesi- 
mus takes  it  to  Philemon,  and  presents  it  to  his  former 
master.  What  the  result  of  that  presentation  is  we  do 
not  know,  but  I  think  it  cannot  be  doubtful  that  the 
letter  was  successful  in  accomplishing  its  end;  that 
Philemon  received  Onesimus  as  a  Christian  brother; 
that  Onesimus  became  his  faithful  servant  again;  and 
that  so  the  breach  was  healed. 

The  course  of  thought  in  this  Epistle  is  very  touch- 
ing and  instructive.  Although  it  is  one  of  the  shortest 
Epistles  of  the  New  Testament,  it  is  most  worthy  of 
our  consideration.  Let  us  see  how  Paul  treats  this 
peculiar  case  that  has  come  under  his  notice  and  has 
so  engaged  his  interest. 

The  Epistle  is  not  written  for  the  purpose  of  touch- 
ing any  great  point  of  doctrine.  It  is  not  intended  to 
rebuke  any  serious  crime  or  sin  of  Philemon's,  to  whom 
it  is  addressed.  It  is  a  private  letter.  And  yet,  because 
it  is  a  private  letter,  unlike  any  other  of  the  Epistles 
in  the  New  Testament,  unless  it  be  the  Second  and 
Third  Epistles  of  John,  it  has  lessons  of  great  impor- 
tance for  us.    As  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  has  been 


298  THE    BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

called  the  hymn  of  Christianity,  this  Epistle  to  Phile- 
mon may  be  called  the  idyl  of  Christianity. 

The  introduction  to  the  Epistle  contains  a  salutation 
from  Paul  and  Timothy  to  Philemon  of  Colosse. 
How  Timothy  should  be  mentioned  in  the  salutation 
I  think  may  be  made  comprehensible  if  we  remember 
that  during  the  two  or  three  years  when  Paul  was 
preaching  in  Ephesus,  Timothy  was  his  helper,,  and 
Philemon  may  have  made  the  acquaintance  and  have 
gained  the  friendship  of  Timothy  in  that  place.  When 
Paul  writes  from  his  Roman  prison  to  Philemon,  it  is 
a  very  natural  thing  to  include  in  his  address  the  name 
of  Timothy,  his  helper.  After  the  first  salutation,  there 
come  a  few  words  of  commendation.  The  apostle 
shows  his  gentlemanliness  of  spirit  by  the  gracious  and 
kindly  way  in  which  he  begins  his  Epistles.  He  always 
takes  men  upon  their  most  favorable  side.  He  always 
mentions  in  a  kindly  and  appreciative  way  what  there 
is  that  is  good  in  them.  At  the  very  beginning  he 
praises  Philemon's  benevolence  and  faith,  which  had 
been  a  great  comfort  to  the  church  of  God,  and  had 
furnished  instructive  lessons  to  the  world  as  to  the 
reality  and  power  of  Christianity. 

That  was  a  good  way  to  begin  an  Epistle  in  which 
he  had  a  very  serious  and  important  request  to  make; 
and  after  having  thus  prefaced  his  Epistle  by  mention- 
ing, what  he  could  mention  with  great  heartiness,  the 
great  benevolence  and  faith  of  Philemon,  he  next 
waives  all  claims  upon  Philemon  based  upon  the  fact 
of  his  apostleship.  He  leaves  that  all  out  of  account; 
takes  the  place  of  the  humble  servant  of  Christ  before 
him;  and  writes  to  him  not  as  an  apostle  now,  but  as 


THE   EPISTLE    TO    PHILEMON  299 

Paul,  the  aged,  a  prisoner  of  Jesus  Christ.  In  other 
words,  he  presents  himself  before  Philemon  as  one 
marked  by  the  shipwrecks  and  scourgings  he  had  en- 
dured, and  aged  before  his  time ;  as  one  now  suffering 
imprisonment ;  and  as  one  who  has  before  him  possible 
martyrdom  for  the  sake  of  Christ.  But  the  great  apos- 
tle does  not  presume  upon  his  own  authority,  nor  even 
upon  the  fact  that  Philemon  owes  to  him  his  conver- 
sion; he  does  not  threaten  or  command;  he  simply  ap- 
peals to  Philemon  as  a  servant  of  Christ  who  had  suf- 
fered much  for  the  Master,  and  who  might,  on  that 
account,  have  a  tender  place  in  Philemon's  heart.  Only 
after  this  gracious  introduction  does  Paul  come  to  the 
fact  of  Onesimus'  fault. 

He  tells  Philemon  that  he  is  well  aware  of  the  crime 
which  Onesimus  has  committed.  He  speaks  of  him, 
however,  as  having  become  a  convert  of  Christ,  as 
having  repented  of  his  fault,  as  being  now  a  changed 
man,  and,  as  a  proof  of  this  change,  he  speaks  of 
Onesimus'  helpfulness  to  the  apostle  in  his  Roman  im- 
prisonment. He  urges  this  as  a  proof  that,  in  the 
future,  he  may  be  profitable  both  to  Paul  and  Phile- 
mon again.  The  changed  spirit  of  the  man  furnishes 
the  basis  of  an  appeal  to  Philemon,  and  there  follows 
the  one  thing  for  which  the  Epistle  was  written, 
namely,  an  earnest  entreaty  on  the  part  of  Paul  that 
Philemon  will  forgive  Onesimus  what  he  has  done, 
forgive  him  the  act  of  robbery  that  he  has  committed, 
forgive  him  that  he  has  broken  away  from  his  master 
and  run  away  to  Rome,  and  that  he  will  receive  him 
back,  not  simply  as  the  slave  he  was  before,  but  as  a 
brother  in  Christ. 


300  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

It  is  a  very  beautiful  thing  that,  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Colossians,  which  was  written  at  just  this  time,  and 
which  was  sent  by  the  hand  of  Tychicus  along  with 
Onesimus,  Paul  commends  to  the  whole  Colossian 
church  this  runaway  but  converted  slave,  declaring, 
''  He  is  a  faithful  and  beloved  brother  who  is  one  of 
you."  In  other  words,  he  sends  him  back  to  the  Colos- 
sian church  with  his  warm  affection  and  strong  recom- 
mendation; and  then,  at  the  same  time,  he  sends  this 
Epistle  to  Philemon,  urging  him  not  only  to  take  Ones- 
imus back  into  his  service,  but  also  to  take  him  now 
into  his  heart,  as  a  brother  beloved  in  Christ.  Then 
follow  expressions  of  confidence  on  the  part  of  Paul 
that  Philemon  will  do  this  thing  that  he  is  asked  to 
do,  and  a  declaration  that,  if  Onesimus  is  indebted  to 
Philemon,  Paul  himself  will  undertake  to  pay  that 
debt.  He  will  take  upon  himself  the  burden  of  repay- 
ing the  pecuniary  loss  that  Philemon  has  sustained,  if 
Philemon  requires  it.  Yet  he  reminds  Philemon  that, 
being  his  convert  to  Christ,  he  owes  to  Paul  all  that 
he  has,  owes  to  him  something  of  infinite  value,  owes 
to  him  his  hope  in  Christ  and  his  hope  of  heaven.  It 
is  as  much  as  to  say :  "  If  you  think  it  well,  I  will  pay 
to  you  all  you  have  lost  by  this  act  of  robbery  on  the 
part  of  Onesimus;  but  still  you  will  remember  how 
much  you  owe  to  me."  All  is  left  to  Philemon's  good 
will.  Philemon  shall  do  just  as  he  pleases,  but,  at  any 
rate,  Paul  wants  him  to  receive  Onesimus  back;  and, 
as  to  any  pecuniary  loss,  Paul  will  sustain  that,  if  there 
is  any  pecuniary  loss  to  be  borne.  Paul  asks  Phile- 
mon to  prepare  a  lodging  for  him,  in  prospect  of  his 
coming  visit,  which  evidently  shows  that,  in  this  first 


THE   EPISTLE   TO    PHILEMON  3OI 

imprisonment,  Paul  expected  that  his  appeal  to  Caesar 
would  be  successful,  and  that  he  would  be  released. 
That  visit  he  undoubtedly  did  pay;  some  time  there- 
after he  was  arrested  and  taken  back  to  Rome  to  his 
second  imprisonment;  that  second  imprisonment  ended 
with  his  trial,  condemnation,  and  execution. 

The  Epistle  to  Philemon  consists  of  only  eighteen 
or  twenty  verses,  but  it  is  certainly  one  of  the  most 
beautiful  private  letters  that  have  come  down  to  us 
from  all  antiquity.  There  is  a  letter  written  by  the 
elder  Pliny  to  a  friend  of  his,  which  is  just  about  as 
long  as  this  Epistle,  and  is  written  on  behalf  of  a 
slave  who  has  also  run  away  from  his  master,  and 
whom  Pliny  seeks  to  restore ;  and  these  two  Epistles — 
the  heathen  and  the  Christian — have  been  put  side  by 
side  with  one  another.  In  the  heathen  epistle  the  ar- 
guments for  the  restoration  of  the  slave  are  all  based 
upon  the  consideration  of  friendship,  and  there  is  no 
appeal  to  Christian  love.  There  is  no  request  that  the 
master  will  take  the  slave  back  to  his  heart,  and  will 
consider  him  as  a  Christian  brother ;  there  is  no  appeal 
to  religious  considerations,  but  simply  an  appeal  to  the 
good  temper  and  kindness  and  personal  friendship  of 
the  person  addressed;  so  that,  as  compared  with  this 
Epistle  to  Philemon,  the  whole  spirit  of  it  is  a  very 
different  one.  Although  it  is  a  noble  example  of 
heathen  kindness  and  benevolence,  it  shows  no  trace  of 
the  principle  which  actuates  this  Epistle  of  Paul  to 
Philemon.  It  is  a  very  curious  fact  that  in  the  fourth 
century  there  were  Fathers  of  the  church  who  were 
inclined  to  deny  this  Epistle  a  place  in  the  canon, 
simply  because  they  thought   it   was   so  trivial   and 


302  THE   BOOKS   OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

unedifying.  How  they  mistook  the  meaning  and  impor- 
tance of  it !  To  them,  the  battle  of  the  creeds,  as  Bishop 
Lightfoot  said,  was  of  more  importance  than  the  fate 
of  a  single  slave.  Those  were  the  days  of  slavery,  and 
these  Christian  Fathers  could  hardly  conceive  how  the 
apostle  could  have  taken  so  much  interest  in  the  fate 
of  a  man  so  far  beneath  him  in  social  standing.  We 
do  not  need  to  go  back  to  antiquity  to  find  illustra- 
tions of  the  indifference  of  prominent  Christians  to 
the  wants  and  woes  of  the  illiterate  and  the  poor.  In 
the  last  century,  Whitefield,  the  great  evangelist,  did 
not  hesitate  to  be  the  owner  of  slaves,  even  at  the  time 
when  he  was  preaching  the  gospel  of  Christ  with  the 
greatest  power  and  success.  It  took  a  great  while  to 
convince  Christendom  that  to  have  a  fellow  man  your 
chattel  and  property  is  inconsistent  with  the  equal 
brotherhood  of  the  gospel  of  Christ.  History  has 
justified  the  position  and  rank  of  this  Epistle  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  I  think  there  are  two  respects  in 
which  it  is  exceedingly  instructive  to  us. 

In  the  first  place,  it  gives  us  a  beautiful  example  of 
the  proper  spirit  and  method  of  Christian  intercourse. 
This  private  letter  of  one  Christian  to  another,  prefer- 
ring a  request  which  seems  to  him  of  importance,  has 
a  spirit  and  method  in  it  that  is  of  very  great  value. 
The  apostle  had  the  right  to  command,  but  he  does 
not  command  at  all.  How  humble,  how  unpretentious, 
how  quiet,  how  kindly,  how  pleading  is  the  tone! 
Everything  is  put  on  the  ground  of  Christian  love,  and 
of  Christian  love  alone. 

If  we  Christians  would  bring  over  our  brethren  to 
any  project  of  ours,  if  we  would  persuade  them  to  do 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    PHILEMON  3O3 

what  we  wish,  the  proper  tone  on  our  part  is  not  the 
tone  of  command,  nor  the  tone  of  threatening,  nor  the 
tone  of  remonstrance,  but  rather  the  tone  of  entreaty 
and  persuasion.  Christ's  method  is  the  quiet  and  hum- 
ble method-of  Christian  love.  An  appeal  to  the  heart, 
which  puts  everything  upon  the  basis  of  love  to  Christ, 
will  accomplish  wonders ;  when  the  other  way,  the  hard 
way,  the  remonstrating  way,  the  threatening  way,  will 
accomplish  nothing.  Paul  gives  us  in  this  letter,  first 
of  all,  a  model  of  the  methods  of  influencing  Chris- 
tian friends  and  of  doing  Christian  work  in  the  church 
of  Christ 

As  a  second  and  last  piece  of  instruction,  this  Epis- 
tle shows  us  how  Christianity  undermines  and  finally 
does  away  with  the  great  organized  wrongs  of  human 
society.  It  has  been  said  that  the  word  '*'  emancipa- 
tion "  was  trembling  upon  the  apostle's  lips;  and  yet 
he  does  not  utter  it.  Christianity  does  not  aim  to  ac- 
complish sudden  social  revolutions.  Christianity  does 
not  begin  from  the  outside  and  work  inward ;  it  begins 
within  and  works  outward.  It  does  not  begin  with  the 
mass  of  men  and  then  come  to  the  individual ;  it  begins 
with  the  individual  and  so  spreads  to  the  mass.  It 
does  not  take  the  great  institutions  of  the  world,  those 
creations  of  organized  iniquity,  and  by  one  fell  swoop 
destroy  them  in  an  instant;  it  infuses  into  them  a  new 
spirit  and  temper,  and  that  new  spirit  and  temper  per- 
meates them  like  leaven  in  the  meal.  You  look,  and 
this  great  organization  of  iniquity  is  a  thing  of  the 
past.  So  it  was  with  the  despotism  of  the  Caesars.  The 
apostle  Paul  did  not  fulminate  against  the  Roman  Em- 
pire, with  its  wickedness  and  tyranny.     The  powers 


304  THE    BOOKS   OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

that  be  are  ordained  by  God ;  so  long  as  human  govern- 
ment exists  he  urges  us  to  obey  the  government;  but 
he  puts  the  spirit  of  love  into  human  hearts,  so  that, 
little  by  little,  it  does  away  with  this  system  of  despot- 
ism. So  he  did  not  utter  any  denunciation  of  slavery. 
Denunciation  would  have  accomplished  little.  Paul 
preached  Christ;  and  when  people  saw  that  Christ 
loved  the  meanest  slave  so  much  that  he  gave  his  very 
life  to  save  him,  the  master  could  no  longer  tread  that 
slave  under  his  feet.  Among  the  Hebrews,  slavery 
was  not  so  great  an  evil,  because  they  themselves  had 
been  slaves  in  times  past,  and  that  gave  them  a  feeling 
of  compassion  for  those  who  were  in  bonds  to  them. 
Slavery  among  the  Jews  could  last  only  six  years  with 
any  individual.  The  seventh  year  was  the  day  of  re- 
demption, and  the  slave  was  set  free.  The  number  of 
slaves  among  the  Jews  was  very  small;  and,  where 
that  is  the  case,  the  master  does  not  fear  the  slave,  and 
is  not  called  upon  to  use  measures  of  cruelty. 

How  different  from  the  Athenians  and  Romans !  In 
Athens  and  Rome,  in  the  days  of  power  and  splendor, 
the  number  of  slaves  and  freemen  was  four  to  one ;  and 
in  order  to  keep  that  vast  mass  of  slaves  under  the 
yoke,  there  were  cruelties  and  restrictions  such  as  were 
never  known  among  the  Hebrews.  The  slave  could 
be  given  away;  he  could  be  sold;  he  could  be  be- 
queathed by  will ;  he  could  be  put  to  death ;  and  no  one 
could  call  his  master  to  account.  It  was  not  so  among 
the  Hebrews.  Slavery  had  the  whole  Roman  Empire 
at  its  back.  It  would  have  been  useless  for  Paul  to 
urge  its  destruction,  or  to  speak  against  it ;  he  preached 
Christ  and  him  crucified;  he  brought  men  to  Christ 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    PHILEMON  305 

and  filled  men's  hearts  with  the  love  of  Christ;  and, 
with  that  love  of  Christ  within,  they  became  patient 
and  tender  toward  their  slaves,  and  counted  them  their 
brothers  and  sisters  in  Christ  Jesus;  so  there  was  a  new 
spirit  infused  into  society,  which  gradually  led  to  the 
liberation  of  the  slave.  We  see  the  fruits  in  these 
Christian  times,  in  the  liberating  of  two  hundred  mil- 
lions of  serfs  by  the  Czar  in  Russia,  and  in  the  emanci- 
pation of  three  milHon  slaves  in  the  Southern  States  of 
America.  The  day  will  come  when  there  will  not  be 
one  single  slave  upon  this  footstool.  \Y&  see  the  dawn- 
ing of  that  day  already.  Slavery  still  exists  in  Africa, 
but  all  the  civilized  nations  of  the  world  are  banded  to- 
gether to  put  it  down.  When  slavery  has  vanished 
from  the  face  of  the  earth,  its  disappearance  will  be  the 
result  of  the  preaching  of  Christ's  gospel,  and  of  that 
era  of  human  liberty  and  equality  this  Epistle  to  Phile- 
mon is  the  prelude  and  prophecy. 


u 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  presents  more  enigma 
than  does  any  other  Epistle  of  the  New  Testament. 
The  origin  of  it  and  the  destination  of  it  are  uncer- 
tain. We  are  not  sure  whether  it  is  a  treatise  or  an 
Epistle.  It  takes  the  Old  Testament  itself  to  prove  the 
insufficiency  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  to  show  that 
the  Old  Testament  economy  is  to  vanish  away.  The 
form  of  doctrine  which  we  find  in  it  is  intermediate 
between  that  of  Paul  and  John,  and  this  suggests  ques- 
tions as  to  authorship  which  are  difficult  to  answer. 
Although  it  is  written  in  the  purest  and  most  elegant 
Greek  of  any  writing  of  the  New  Testament,  it  was 
written,  not  to  Greek  or  Gentile  Christians,  but  to  He- 
brews; and  it  appears  before  us,  like  that  Melchisedec 
who  makes  so  great  a  figure  in  the  Epistle  itself,  "  with- 
out father  or  mother,  without  beginning  of  days  or 
end  of  years,"  yet  shows  forth  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  the  glory  of  the  new  covenant  in  some  aspects 
which  are  not  elsewhere  revealed.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary to  the  inspiration  of  a  New  Testament  document 
that  we  should  be  able  to  tell  the  precise  source  or 
author  of  it;  it  is  only  necessary  that  it  should  come 
from  God  and  should  be  adapted  to  the  religious  in- 
struction of  mankind.  The  history  of  its  reception  in 
the  Christian  church  is  itself  very  peculiar.  It  was  a 
stormy  history  through  which  it  passed.  During  the 
first  century  after  it  was  written  we  do  not  know  that 
306 


THE   EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS  307 

there  was  the  least  doubt  as  to  its  genuineness;  but 
the  two  centuries  that  followed,  in  the  Roman  church 
and  in  the  North  African  churches,  were  centuries  in 
which  its  authenticity  was  very  widely  doubted;  and 
it  was  only  the  investigation  of  Jerome  in  the  fourth 
century,  and  the  subsequent  examination  that  was 
given  it  by  Augustine,  that  led  these  distinguished 
church  Fathers  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  of  verita- 
ble canonical  authority,  and  that  finally  led  the  West- 
ern church  to  unite  with  the  Eastern  church  in  accept- 
ing it;  so  that  all  doubt  was  removed  and  its  canonical 
authority  was  settled  for  all  time. 

The  doubts  that  arose,  with  regard  to  the  genuine- 
ness and  authority  of  the  Epistle,  circled  around  the 
question  of  its  authorship;  and  this  is  the  question 
which  we  must  first  discuss.  Who  was  the  author  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews?  The  superscription,  "  The 
Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Hebrews,"  is  not  a  part  of  the 
Epistle  at  all.  That  title  is  of  later  authorship;  we 
must  set  that  aside  just  as  if  it  were  not,  and  must  ask 
ourselves  what  the  evidence  is  that  it  was  the  work  of 
Paul  or  the  work  of  some  other.  Origen,  the  great 
church  Father,  gives  us  a  sentence  like  this,  "  Who 
wrote  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  God  only  knows  " ; 
and  I  suppose  that  we  ourselves  might  take  upon  our 
lips  that  very  same  sentence  to-day.  One  thing  is  now 
generally  concluded  by  the  great  mass  of  commenta- 
tors and  interpreters,  and  that  is  that  the  apostle  Paul 
did  not  write  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  It  is  not,  in 
any  proper  sense,  an  Epistle  of  Paul. 

There  are  two  sorts  of  reasons  upon  which  we  base 
this  conclusion.    First,  there  are  doctrinal  reasons ;  and 


308  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

secondly,  there  are  rhetorical  reasons.  The  doctrinal 
reasons  are  these — that,  in  his  discussion  of  the  great 
question  of  human  salvation,  the  author  of  the  Epistle 
follows  a  method  that  is  entirely  different  from  that  of 
the  apostle  Paul.  If  you  will  examine  the  Epistles  of 
Paul,  and  his  speeches  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  you 
will  find  that  Paul  always  begins  with  the  state  and 
condition  of  mankind,  and  from  that  state  and  condi- 
tion of  mankind  rises  to  the  divine  remedy  and  the 
divine  salvation.  On  the  contrary,  the  method  of  the 
author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  to  begin  with 
the  divine  Saviour  and  his  great  work  for  human  re- 
demption, and  to  come  thence  to  the  consideration  of 
man's  needs  and  his  method  of  appropriating  the  work 
of  God.  The  author  of  this  Epistle,  moreover,  regards 
the  death  of  Christ  as  connected  more  immediately  and 
prominently  with  the  w^ork  of  intercession  than  with 
the  work  of  atonement.  He  sets  Christ  before  us  in 
his  priestly  intercession  in  heaven,  rather  than  in  his 
priestly  atonement  upon  the  earth.  To  the  mind  of 
the  author,  the  cross  of  Christ  is  mainly  an  offering  in 
the  heavenly  sanctuary.  It  is  rather  the  basis  of  inter- 
cession there  than  the  basis  of  atonement  here. 

When  you  come  to  the  rhetorical  characteristics  of 
the  Epistle,  you  find  that,  both  in  minute  details  and  in 
its  general  character,  the  Epistle  is  very  unlike  the 
Epistles  of  the  apostle  Paul.  These  matters  of  style 
are  very  difficult  to  expound  in  popular  discourse.  One 
who  is  acquainted  with  the  original  Greek  and  who  has 
read  Paul's  Epistles,  and  who  has  then  read  this  Epistle 
with  a  view  to  its  relation  to  those,  will  recognize  the 
fact  that,  in  style,  this  is  entirely  different  from  them. 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS  3O9 

There  is  nothing  by  which  the  style  of  a  person  can 
be  judged  so  accurately  and  correctly  as  by  his  use  of 
adverbs  and  conjunctions,  those  little  connecting  parts 
of  speech  upon  which  very  little  conscious  attention  is 
bestowed,  yet  which  indicate  the  method  of  the  author's 
thought,  rise  spontaneously  to  his  lips,  and  flow  spon- 
taneously from  his  pen.  The  conjunctions  and  adverbs 
that  are  used  in  all  the  Epistles  of  Paul  are  very  dif- 
ferent from  those  which  are  used  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews;  in  fact,  one  conjunction  that  is  used  fifty 
times  in  this  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  you  do  not  find 
even  once  in  the  Epistles  of  Paul. 

There  is  a  characteristic  that  is  more  evident  and 
more  easy  to  describe.  I  refer  to  the  general  rhetorical 
style.  This  is  totally  different  from  that  of  Paul's 
Epistles.  The  style  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is 
flowing  and  fervid  and  rhetorical;  while  the  style  of 
the  apostle  Paul  is  predominantly  dialectic.  Paul  is 
full  of  what  we  might  call  anacolutha — sentences  that 
begin  and  do  not  end;  but  you  have  no  such  sentence 
in  this  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  The  style  of  the  apostle 
Paul  is  that  of  a  man  whose  emotions  frequently  break 
through  all  common  forms  of  speech,  and  show  them- 
selves superior  to  the  outward  methods  of  expression. 
It  is  like  a  mountain  torrent.  There  are  very  few 
places  where  it  flows  on  in  a  smooth  and  unbroken 
course;  it  is  evermore  dashing  from  point  to  point, 
breaking  away  from  the  even  and  steady  method  of 
address,  and  reveling  in  that  which  is  sudden  and  un- 
expected. There  is  picturesqueness  in  it,  and  emotion 
frequently  breaks  through  the  natural  forms  of  ordi- 
nary speech.    The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  character- 


310  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

ized  by  no  such  bursts,  by  no  such  breaks.  It  flows  on 
steadily,  like  the  course  of  a  great  river  through  an 
open  plain. 

Our  own  Doctor  Kendrick  has  said  very  truly  that 
the  apostle  Paul  is  rhetorical  when  he  cannot  help  it; 
but  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  always 
rhetorical,  because  he  can  never  be  anything  else.  This 
is  the  real  difference  between  the  rhetoric  of  the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Hebrews  and  the  Epistles  of  the  apostle  Paul. 
There  is  now  almost  universal  consent  among  scholars 
that  Paul  was  not  the  author  of  this  Epistle.  It  is 
equally  difficult  to  believe  that  the  substance  of  the 
Epistle  was  furnished  by  Paul,  but  that  the  form  of  it 
was  furnished  by  some  helper  of  his  as,  for  example, 
Luke  or  Timothy.  It  could  not  possibly  be  Timothy, 
because  there  is  an  allusion  to  Timothy  as  a  third  per- 
son in  the  Epistle  itself.  Luke  has  often  been  men- 
tioned as  one  to  whom  Paul  might  have  given  the  sub- 
stance of  the  document,  to  be  put  into  form  by  Luke 
himself.  But  there  is  such  a  unity  in  the  Epistle,  the 
thought  and  the  expression  are  so  welded  together,  and 
both  of  them  are  so  independent  and  so  unlike  what  we 
know  of  the  apostle  Paul,  that  it  is  impossible  to  be- 
lieve the  author  of  it  a  mere  subordinate.  The  Epistle 
gives  every  evidence  of  an  original  writer,  who  drew 
his  material  mainly  from  his  own  soul,  under  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Spirit  of  God. 

The  most  plausible  hypothesis  that  has  ever  been 
advanced  is  that  it  was  the  work  of  Apollos.  Luther 
first  gave  this  suggestion  to  the  world,  and  one  of  the 
strongest  advocates  of  this  authorship  of  the  Epistle  is 
our  own  Doctor  Kendrick.   In  the  commentary  of  Lange 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS  3II 

on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  which  Doctor  Kendrick 
edited,  you  may  find  this  view  very  admirably  drawn 
out.  If  you  remember  what  is  said  of  the  work  and 
characteristics  of  Apollos  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles, you  will  see  at  once  that  there  is  great  verisimili- 
tude in  this  hypothesis.  The  author  of  this  Epistle 
must  certainly  have  been  a  Jew.  Well,  Apollos  was  a 
Jew.  The  author  of  this  Epistle  was  a  very  learned 
man,  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  tells  us  that  Apollos 
was  a  learned  man.  The  author  of  this  Epistle  shows 
great  familiarity  with  the  works  of  Philo  Judseus,  the 
Alexandrian,  and  he  uses  many  phrases  that  are  the 
same  as  those  used  by  Philo.  Now  the  Acts  tells  us  that 
Apollos  was  a  Jew  of  Alexandria.  The  author  of  this 
Epistle  had  a  wonderful  knowledge  of  Old  Testament 
Scriptures;  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  tells  us  that 
Apollos  was  mighty  in  the  Scriptures. 

The  author  of  this  Epistle  shows  a  wonderful  power 
and  skill  in  proving  from  the  Old  Testament  the  Mes- 
siahship  of  Christ,  and  the  glory  of  the  New  Covenant ; 
and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  tells  us  that  this  Apollos 
powerfully  convinced  the  Jews,  proving  to  them  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ.  Indeed,  in  the  description  of 
Apollos  which  the  Acts  gives  us,  we  have  packed  to- 
gether in  a  few  verses  the  most  remarkable  character- 
istics of  this  Epistle,  and  all  these  characteristics  are 
declared  to  be  the  characteristics  of  Apollos.  So,  if 
we  are  to  settle  down  upon  any  single  person  mentioned 
in  the  New  Testament  as  the  author,  we  may  settle 
down  upon  Apollos.  Timothy  is  mentioned  in  the 
Epistle  as  one  with  whom  the  author  had  acquaintance 
and  apparently  had  intercourse;  and  we  know  that 


312  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Timothy,  having  been  instructed  by  Paul,  was  Paul's 
messenger  to  Corinth.  Since  Apollos  was  in  Corinth 
at  the  time,  there  is  abundant  reason  to  believe  that 
Apollos  and  Timothy  were  intimately  acquainted  with 
each  other.  But  leaving  this  matter  of  authorship,  al- 
though I  think  the  general  consent  of  scholars  is  more 
and  more  fastening  upon  Apollos  as  the  most  probable 
author  of  the  Epistle,  let  us  pass  on  to  ask  to  what 
persons  this  Epistle  was  addressed. 

You  may  say  it  was  addressed  to  the  Hebrews.  But 
who  were  the  Hebrews,  and  where  were  the  Hebrews  ? 
There  were  Hebrews,  or  Jews,  scattered  all  through 
the  Roman  Empire.  Was  this  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
written  to  Jews  who  were  thus  scattered  among  the 
Gentiles  ?  No,  very  decidedly  not ;  for  it  is  very  plain, 
as  you  read  the  Epistle,  that  those  to  whom  the  Epistle 
is  addressed  constituted  a  Christian  community  by 
themselves.  It  is  not  to  the  multitude  of  churches,  but 
to  a  number  of  Christians  within  a  certain  locality,  that 
the  Epistle  is  sent.  This  Jewish  community,  appar- 
ently, has  no  connection  with  Gentiles.  There  is  no 
mention  of  Gentiles  in  the  Epistle;  no  indication  that 
the  Jewish  Christians  to  whom  the  Epistle  was  written 
were  in  any  particular  danger  from  Gentiles;  no  inti- 
mation that  they  were  tempted  by  Gentiles,  or  had 
work  to  do  with  Gentiles.  No,  the  persons  to  whom 
the  Epistle  is  addressed  are  living  quite  apart  from 
Gentile  influence,  and  there  is  no  such  variety  among 
them  as  there  was  in  those  churches  to  which  Paul 
addressed  most  of  his  Epistles.  Now  there  is  no 
place  in  the  Roman  Empire  at  this  time  which  so 
fits  the  circumstances  and  conditions   which   I   have 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS  3I3 

mentioned,  as  the  city  of  Jerusalem  and  the  region  of 
Palestine  around  about  it.  That  these  Hebrews  were 
in  Jerusalem  and  in  its  vicinity  is  altogether  the  most 
plausible  hypothesis. 

We  find,  by  reading  the  Epistle,  that  these  Hebrews 
were  in  special  danger  of  being  drawn  away  from  their 
faith,  because  of  their  exclusion  from  the  services  of 
the  temple.  They  were  in  the  midst  of  persecution, 
and  were  tempted  to  apostatize  from  the  faith  of  Christ. 
This  Epistle  was  written  to  warn  them  of  these  tempta- 
tions, and  to  urge  them  to  be  steadfast  in  their  alle- 
giance to  Jesus. 

These  conditions  are  fulfilled  in  Jerusalem  and  in 
Palestine  at  a  particular  point  of  time  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament history,  and  that  leads  us  to  the  question  when 
it  was  that  the  Epistle  was  written.  Certain  considera- 
tions lead  us  to  believe  that  it  cannot  have  been  earlier 
than  the  year  60. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  pretty  clear  that  it  was  to 
a  second  generation  of  Christians  that  the  Epistle  was 
written.  It  is  intimated  in  the  Epistle  that  those  who 
are  addressed  had  not  received  the  gospel  at  first  hand 
from  Christ.  They  were  not  persons  who  had  been 
contemporary  with  Jesus;  but  they  had  received  the 
word  from  those  who  had  seen  Jesus  and  had  heard 
him.  Therefore,  the  point  of  time  when  the  Epistle  is 
written  must  be  twenty-five  or  thirty  years  after  the 
death  of  the  Saviour.  Another  generation  had  sprung 
up.  Moreover,  it  is  intimated  that  certain  leaders  of 
the  church  had  suffered  martyrdom  for  their  faith; 
many  of  its  members  had  suffered  persecution  by  the 
spoiling   of    their    goods;    and    they    are    still    under 


314  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

reproach  and  exposed  to  danger.  Now,  if  you  remem- 
ber, immediately  after  the  death  of  Christ  and  the  as- 
cension of  the  Saviour,  the  disciples  returned  from 
Bethany  to  Jerusalem  with  great  joy;  and  they  were 
found  continually  in  the  temple.  There  was  no  objec- 
tion or  difficulty  in  the  way  of  Christians,  at  that  time, 
worshiping  in  the  temple  and  having  all  the  privileges 
that  formerly  belonged  to  them  as  Jews.  In  other 
words,  at  the  first,  Christians  were  thought  to  be  only 
a  sect  or  school  of  the  Jews.  They  were  not  thrust 
out  completely  from  the  synagogue  or  from  the  temple. 
When  we  come  on  to  the  year  58,  at  Paul's  last  visit  to 
Jerusalem,  we  find  the  beginning  of  a  different  state 
of  things.  We  find  prejudice  aroused  against  Chris- 
tians. We  find  hostility  and  opposition.  A  riot  is  in- 
stigated against  Paul  by  the  mere  suspicion,  the  unjust 
suspicion,  that  he  has  brought  a  Gentile  Christian  into 
the  court  of  the  Jews  belonging  to  the  temple.  That 
bitterness  of  spirit  which  had  developed  itself  against 
Christians  would  lead  us  to  expect,  a  little  later  in  the 
history,  precisely  what  we  find  in  this  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  namely,  that  there  would  be  a  disposition 
among  the  Jews  to  thrust  Christians  out  altogether. 
It  must  be,  therefore,  after  the  year  58,  it  must  be 
after  the  year  60,  that  this  Epistle  was  written.  It 
seems  to  me  altogether  probable  that  the  date  of  this 
Epistle  is  as  late  as  the  year  67,  just  after  the  martyr- 
dom of  Paul  at  Rome,  and  just  after  Timothy  had 
made  that  visit  to  Rome  which  Paul  requested,  and 
had  shared  his  imprisonment,  for  we  find  in  this  Epis- 
tle that  Timothy  has  just  been  set  at  liberty.  If  this 
supposition  be  true,  it  must  be  about  the  year  67  that 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS  315 

the  Epistle  was  written;  that  is,  just  before  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem,  which  took  place  in  the  year  70. 
It  could  not  have  been  later  than  that,  because  the 
temple  is  spoken  of  as  still  standing.  The  dates  be- 
tween which  we  must  confine  the  writing  of  the  Epistle 
are  somewhere  between  the  year  66  and  the  year  70; 
and  if  we  must  fix  upon  a  definite  year,  the  year  67  is  as 
good  as  any  we  can  fix  upon. 

The  object  of  the  Epistle  I  have  already  touched 
upon.  It  was  to  warn  the  Hebrew  Christians  against 
the  danger  of  apostatizing  from  Christ.  What  was 
this  danger?  Why,  the  danger  arising  from  the 
fact  that,  having  been  born  and  bred  in  Jerusalem  or 
its  neighborhood,  they  had  been  accustomed  to  regard 
the  outward  worship  of  the  temple  as  essential  to  their 
Christian  faith.  They  had  been  accustomed  to  think 
that  the  sacrifices  that  were  offered  day  by  day,  being 
of  divine  appointment,  were  to  be  perpetual,  and  that 
those  who  were  thrust  out  from  the  worship  of  the 
sanctuary  and  from  participation  in  these  sacrificial 
offerings  were  thrust  out  from  God,  and  might  lose 
their  hope  of  the  Messianic  salvation. 

The  Epistle  endeavors  to  counteract  all  this,  by 
showing  these  Hebrew  Christians  that  the  laws  of  the 
old  dispensation  were  only  a  type  of  the  new  dispensa- 
tion that  was  to  come;  that,  as  they  had  Christ  in 
their  hearts  as  their  heavenly  sacrifice  and  interces- 
sor, they  could  now  do  away  with  the  old  sacrifices  of 
the  temple  and  with  the  old  temple  worship;  and  that 
they  would  be  none  the  worse  for  the  change.  Christ 
is  the  same  yesterday,  to-day,  and  forever.  Christ  is 
the  divine  Saviour.     If  they  have  Christ  they  have  all. 


3l6  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

There  are  three  main  divisions  of  the  doctrinal 
treatment,  in  which  the  author  of  the  Epistle  shows 
that  the  Old  Testament  system  is  only  the  type  and 
the  prophecy  of  the  'New.  You  remember  how  he 
opens  his  Epistle.  The  subject  is  stated  in  that  first 
verse.  *'  God,"  he  says,  ''  who  at  many  times  and  in 
Varied  ways  spoke  unto  the  fathers  by  the  prophets, 
hath,  in  these  last  days,  spoken  unto  us  by  his  Son." 
Then  he  goes  on  to  describe  him  as  being  the  effluence 
of  the  Father's  glory,  as  being  the  express  image  of 
his  person,  as  having  purged  our  sins  by  his  sacrifice, 
and  as  now  sitting  at  the  right  hand,  on  the  throne,  of 
God;  so,  at  the  very  beginning,  he  suggests  that  the 
new  is  better  than  the  old,  and  that  the  old  way  is  only 
the  foreshadowing  of  the  new.  Now  that  the  new 
has  come,  the  substance  has  come,  and  the  shadow  may 
flee  away.  Then  he  proceeds  to  show  that  this  Christ, 
this  divine  Redeemer,  who  has  purged  our  sins  and 
now  sits  in  the  heavenly  sanctuary  for  us,  is,  first, 
superior  to  the  angels,  the  mediators  of  the  old  cove- 
nant; secondly,  is  superior  to  Moses  and  Joshua,  the 
leaders  of  the  old  economy;  and,  thirdly,  is  superior 
to  Aaron,  the  great  high  priest  of  the  Old  Testament 
dispensation.  Having  shown  that  Christ  is  superior  to 
all  these  mediators  of  the  old  covenant,  he  shows  that 
the  only  personage  in  the  Old  Testament  who  can  fitly 
set  forth  the  glory  and  dignity  of  Christ  is  that  strange 
and  mysterious  person,  Melchisedec,  who  was  both 
king  and  priest,  and  who  sprang  all  of  a  sudden  in 
the  history,  without  any  account  of  his  ancestry  or  of 
what  became  of  him,  as  a  sort  of  type  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  the  Saviour  and  Redeemer  of  the  world. 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS  3I7 

Then  the  author  goes  on  to  speak  of  the  great  su- 
periority of  this  new  redemption  and  economy,  this 
high  priesthood  of  Jesus  in  heaven  and  his  heavenly 
service,  to  anything  that  could  possibly  exist  upon  the 
earth,  where  the  priesthood  could  continue  only  a  little 
while  by  reason  of  death.  Here  we  have  One  who  is 
made  priest,  not  after  the  law  of  a  carnal  command- 
ment, but  after  the  power  of  an  endless  life,  and  there- 
fore, not  for  a  day,  nor  for  a  few  days,  but  forever 
and  forever,  living  to  make  intercession  for  us.  If 
he  who  is  the  one  great  Priest,  of  whom  the  Old  Testa- 
ment priests  were  only  types,  has  come  at  last,  why, 
the  Old  Testament  priests  may  go,  we  need  them  no 
longer.  Christ  abides;  he  is  the  same,  yesterday,  to- 
day, and  forever.  Then  the  latter  portion  of  the  Epis- 
tle is  a  practical  part,  which  draws  the  inference  that, 
if  these  things  be  true,  then  the  one  duty  of  every  Chris- 
tian is  to  hold  fast  to  Christ,  and  to  let  the  Old  Testa- 
ment dispensation,  with  its  types  and  its  symbols,  pass 
away  into  forgetfulness. 

The  beginning  of  this  practical  part  is  that  long 
catalogue  of  the  heroes  of  faith,  those  worthies  of  the 
Old  Testament  that  had  been  true  to  God,  in  spite 
of  all  manner  of  temptation,  persecution,  and  danger, 
and  who  furnish  for  us  models  for  the  faith  of  the 
New  Testament.  Since  Jesus,  our  forerunner,  has 
entered  into  the  heavenly  sanctuary,  we  are  to  follow 
him,  running  the  race  that  is  set  before  us,  "  looking 
unto  Jesus,  the  author  and  finisher  of  our  faith, 
w^ho,  for  the  joy  that  was  set  before  him,  endured  the 
cross,  despising  the  shame,  and  is  now  set  down  at 
the  right  hand  of  the  throne  of  God."    So  the  practical 


3l8  THE    BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

part  of  the  Epistle  succeeds  and  supplements  the  doc- 
trinal part,  and  impresses  its  applications  upon  us. 

Three  things  may  be  said  with  regard  to  this  Epis- 
tle, all  of  which  are  points  of  general  interest,  aside 
from  the  general  course  of  thought  which  I  have  men- 
tioned. The  first  is  this,  that  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews sets  before  us  Jesus  Christ  as  an  absolute,  unique, 
and  divine  High  Priest,  ordained  to  transact  with  God 
for  us,  as  the  one  High  Priest,  of  whom  the  Old  Testa- 
ment high  priests  were  only  the  types  and  symbols. 
That  is  the  first  great  thought  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews.  We  have  such  a  High  Priest  who  has  en- 
tered into  the  heavenly  sanctuary.  Let  us,  therefore, 
go  boldly  to  the  throne  of  grace,  that  we  may  find 
mercy  and  grace  to  help  us  in  our  times  of  need. 
This  High  Priest  is  one  with  God,  the  brightness  of 
the  Father's  glory  and  the  express  image  of  his  per- 
son ;  but  he  is  one  with  us  also.  No  other  passage  of 
the  New  Testament  presents  to  us  the  human  side  of 
our  sympathizing  High  Priest  as  this  does.  He  took 
upon  himself  our  nature;  was  tempted  in  all  points 
like  as  we  are,  yet  without  sin;  and,  for  that  reason, 
he  is  able  to  sympathize  with  us,  and  succor  us  when 
we  are  tempted.  There  is  no  more  beautiful  or  pathetic 
passage  than  this  In  the  whole  Bible. 

The  second  great  lesson  which  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  teaches  is  that  of  the  brotherly  relation  which 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  sustains  to  us.  He  is  not  only 
God,  but  also  man;  our  elder  brother  is  upon  the 
throne;  our  elder  brother  is  interceding  for  us  in  the 
heavenly  sanctuary.  Since  this  High  Priest  is  both 
God  and  man,  since  there  unites  in  him  all  that  can 


THE   EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS  319 

make  high-priesthood  perfect,  this  high-priestly  serv- 
ice is  the  final  one.  No  greater  revelation  than  this  is 
ever  to  be  expected  from  God;  it  is  the  last  revela- 
tion of  God  to  man ;  it  is  the  most  perfect  disclosure  of 
the  love  and  justice  of  the  King  on  high.  Therefore, 
Christianity  is  not  one  of  many  revelations;  it  is  not 
to  be  put  side  by  side  with  Buddhism  or  Confucianism, 
as  if  there  were  only  some  good  in  it,  just  as  there  is 
some  good  in  them;  but  Christianity  is  the  one  and 
only  revelation,  of  which  all  these  others  are  only 
faint  foreshadowings.  Here,  in  Christianity,  we  see 
brought  to  a  focus  all  those  scattered  rays  that  shone 
dimly  amid  the  darkness  of  the  heathen  world.  All 
that  is  good  in  heathenism  is  found  in  Christianity, 
and  infinitely  more.  Christianity  is  the  one  and  final 
revelation  of  God  to  man. 

So  there  follows  the  third  and  last  great  lesson. 
"  See  that  ye  refuse  not  him  that  speaketh  " ;  for,  if  he 
that  rejecteth  the  Old  Testament  dispensation  did  not 
escape,  of  what  punishment  shall  he  be  thought  worthy 
who  has  trodden  under  his  feet  the  blood  of  the  Son 
of  God,  and  has  put  his  Saviour  to  an  open  shame  ? 

Nowhere  in  the  whole  New  Testament  do  we  find 
such  solemn  warnings  against  apostasy  as  we  find  here 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  The  apostle  has  set 
before  us  the  exceeding  glory  of  this  new  dispensation. 
He  has  shown  us  that  it  is  an  absolute,  complete,  and 
final  thing,  the  last  word  that  God  has  spoken  or  that 
God  can  speak  to  man.  Let  us  be  sure  that  we  do  not 
turn  our  backs  upon  him.  Let  us  be  sure  that,  having 
come  to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth,  we  do  not  turn  away 
from  it,   and   forget  what   we   have  learned,  to  the 


320  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

destruction  of  our  souls.  Let  us  accept  the  warning,  let 
us  go  on  in  the  Christian  course.  Leaving  the  princi- 
ples of  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  let  us  go  on  to  perfec- 
tion. In  his  warning  against  apostasy,  the  apostle 
does  not  mean  us  to  understand  that  any  that  have 
once  experienced  the  real  grace  of  God  shall  ever  be 
left  to  fall  away  to  their  own  destruction.  He  says  to 
these  very  persons :  "  Brethren,  I  am  persuaded  better 
things  of  you,  even  although  we  thus  speak."  Yet  it 
is  very  needful  for  the  perseverance  of  the  saints  that 
these  warnings  be  given.  Only  by  appreciating  the 
greatness  of  our  danger,  and  the  necessity  of  our  per- 
severing in  holiness,  shall  we  be  kept  from  falling  away. 
Let  us  endure,  therefore,  to  the  end,  in  order  that  we 
may  be  saved. 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES 

Three  persons  named  James  are  mentioned  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  it  has  been  a  question  which  of 
these  persons  was  the  author  of  our  Epistle.  Some 
have  thought  that  the  author  was  James,  the  brother  of 
John  and  the  son  of  Zebedee;  but  this  seems  quite  im- 
possible, because  he  suffered  martyrdom  in  the  year  44, 
before  the  dispersion  of  the  Jewish  Christians  which  is 
mentioned  in  its  opening  words.  It  w^as  after  this 
James,  the  brother  of  John,  was  slain,  and  largely  be- 
cause of  his  death,  that  members  of  the  church  fled 
from  Jerusalem  and  made  their  way  beyond  the  bounds 
of  Palestine.  When  the  apostle  James  died  they  had 
not  yet  gotten  even  so  far  as  Antioch,  and  it  was  con- 
sequently impossible  then  to  write  to  the  twelve  tribes 
of  Christians  who  were  scattered  abroad,  as  the  author 
of  this  Epistle  does.  The  apostle  James,  moreover, 
could  hardly  have  been  the  author,  for  the  reason  that 
before  his  death  the  internal  organization  of  the  Chris- 
tian church  was  not  so  perfectly  developed  as  it  appears 
to  have  been  in  this  Epistle. 

The  indications  are  far  more  favorable  to  the  view 
that  the  author  of  the  Epistle  is  James,  our  Lord's 
brother,  the  oldest  of  those  brothers  of  our  Lord  with 
whom  we  meet  so  frequently  in  the  Gospels  and  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles.  There  were  four  of  these,  James, 
and  Joses,  Simon  and  Judas,  and  there  were  sisters 
belonging  to  the  family  also. 

V  321 


322  THE    BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Paul,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  speaks  of  James, 
the  Lord's  brother,  as  being  the  president  of  the  church 
at  Jerusalem.  He  was  one  of  "  the  pillars."  He  had 
authority;  his  words  were  treated  with  respect  such 
as  belongs  to  no  one  else  outside  of  the  narrow  apos- 
tolic circle;  and  it  is  probably  to  him  that  we  must 
ascribe  this  Epistle. 

There  still  remains  a  question  that  is  quite  inter- 
esting ;  namely,  whether  this  James,  the  brother  of  our 
Lord,  was  identical  with  James  the  son  of  Alphseus  or 
James  the  Less,  who  was  one  of  the  apostles.  In  the 
apostolic  circle  there  were  two  persons  by  the  name  of 
James.  There  was  James  the  son  of  Zebedee,  and  there 
was  James  the  son  of  Alphasus;  and  it  is  a  question 
whether  the  James  who  is  the  brother  of  our  Lord  was 
not  also  this  apostle. 

There  are  some  reasons  to  believe  that  this  was  not 
so,  and  that  the  James  of  whom  we  read  here  was  a 
third  person,  entirely  distinct  from  either  one  of  the 
two  persons  by  the  name  of  James  who  belonged  to 
the  apostles.  One  reason  is  this :  that  after  Jesus  had 
completed  his  choice  of  the  apostles,  the  brethren  of 
our  Lord  were  yet  unbelievers;  they  could  not  have 
belonged  to  the  apostles,  because  the  apostles  were  all 
known  and  numbered  before  the  time  of  their  conver- 
sion. Moreover,  when  we  find  that  the  brethren  of  our 
Lord  are  mentioned  at  all,  we  find  them  mentioned  in 
such  a  way  as  to  distinguish  them  from  the  apostles. 
For  example,  in  that  long-continued  meeting  for  prayer 
in  the  upper  room  at  Jerusalem,  which  ended  at  the  day 
of  Pentecost,  we  read  that  there  were  gathered  the 
Twelve,  who  are  mentioned  by  name,  with  the  women 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   JAMES  323 

and  with  Mary  the  mother  of  Jesus,  and  with  his  breth- 
ren; where  you  see  that  his  brethren  are  put  last,  are 
distinguished  from  the  apostles,  are  evidently  different 
persons.  The  James,  therefore,  who  is  the  brother  of 
our  Lord,  could  not  also  have  been  one  of  the  apostles. 
Why  is  it  that  the  Lord's  brethren,  in  this  enumeration 
of  the  persons  who  are  present  and  who  are  praying  for 
the  descent  of  the  Spirit,  are  mentioned  last?  Why, 
simply  because  they  were  the  last  to  come  into  the  num- 
ber of  Christ's  disciples.  After  the  Twelve  had  been 
chosen  they  still  remained  unbelieving. 

These  brethren  of  our  Lord,  who  had  been  accus- 
tomed to  look  up  to  Jesus  in  his  life  at  Nazareth  as 
simply  the  elder  brother  of  the  household,  and  to  see 
him  perform  the  common  work  of  the  carpenter,  had 
of  all  men  found  it  most  difficult  to  realize  the  fact 
that  he  was  the  Messiah  sent  from  God,  the  very  Son 
of  God,  who  had  come  to  deliver  the  world. 

It  must  have  required  a  struggle  of  faith,  it  must 
have  required  a  conflict  with  preconceptions,  such  as 
no  others  passed  through.  Let  us  not  blame  them  too 
much.  A  prophet  Is  not  without  honor  save  in  his  own 
country  and  In  his  own  house,  said  Jesus,  with  prob- 
able reference  to  these  very  brethren  of  his. 

The  very  nearness  which  we  sustain  to  Christ  In  an 
external  relation  may  make  it  the  more  difficult  for 
us  to  apprehend  his  thoroughly  spiritual  nature;  and 
so  it  was  with  them.  Therefore,  It  was  not  until 
Christ's  work  was  completed,  and  the  greatest  of  mira- 
cles, the  resurrection  of  our  Lord  from  the  dead,  had 
taken  place,  that  these  brethren  of  our  Lord  had  their 
doubts   removed,   and   came   into   the  number   of  his 


3^4  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

disciples.  It  was  only  when  Christ,  the  risen  Saviour, 
in  the  fulness  of  a  brother's  love,  appeared  to  this  James 
singly,  that  James'  doubts  were  all  removed,  that  his 
skepticism  was  swept  away,  that  his  heart  was  broken 
with  love  for  him  whom  up  to  that  time  he  had  refused 
to  recognize  as  his  Lord. 

There  is  something  very  touching,  it  seems  to  me, 
in  the  way  in  which  James  begins  his  Epistle.  He  says, 
"  James,  a  servant  of  God  and  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ."  How  much  that  meant  for  him  who  had  been 
seated  side  by  side  with  our  Saviour,  at  the  same 
board  for  many  years,  and  who  had  refused  to  recog- 
nize him !  And  why  is  it  that  James,  in  the  beginning 
of  his  Epistle,  does  not  mention  the  fact  that  he  is  the 
brother  of  our  Lord?  Why,  very  much  for  the  same 
reason  that  Paul  does  not  think  that  he  can  take  any 
glory  to  himself,  since  he  persecuted  the  church  of 
God.  So  James  hardly  thinks  that  he  is  worthy  to  be 
called  the  brother  of  our  Lord;  at  least,  he  will  not 
join  that  title  to  his  name  when  he  writes  to  others. 
Moreover,  he  will  not  seem  to  claim  a  greater  near- 
ness to  Christ  than  belongs  to  Christ's  chosen  apostles. 
There  is  great  humility,  I  think,  in  the  way  in  which 
James  begins  his  Epistle.  So,  we  have  James,  the 
brother  of  our  Lord,  not  one  of  the  Twelve,  but  one 
called  after  the  Twelve,  one  converted  after  the  resur- 
rection of  Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead,  as  the  author  of 
this  Epistle,  and  proclaiming  himself  to  be,  not  an 
apostle  of  Christ,  but  simply  a  servant  of  God  and  of 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  There  yet  remains  another 
question  with  regard  to  the  personality  of  James; 
namely   this :   whether   the   phrase    ''  brother   of   our 


THE    EPISTLE    OF    JAMES  325 

Lord "  means  that  James  was  a  son  of  the  same 
mother,  or  whether  he  was  a  cousin,  or  a  son  of  the 
same  father.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  has  a  great 
prejudice  against  the  idea  that  Mary  should  ever  have 
had  other  children  than  Jesus.  The  perpetual  virginity 
of  Mary  is  one  of  its  most  cherished  dogmas.  This 
dogma  had  its  origin  in  the  superior  sanctity  which 
that  Church  attaches  to  celibacy.  It  is  thought  de- 
rogatory to  the  mother  of  our  Lord  that  she  ever  should 
have  been  the  mother  of  other  children.  But  the 
seventh  verse  of  the  second  chapter  of  Luke's  Gospel 
has  the  words,  "  Brought  forth  her  firstborn  son,"  and 
a  candid  reader  would  naturally  infer  from  the  fact  of 
Jesus'  being  the  ''  firstborn,"  that  Mary  had  other  chil- 
dren after. 

Plato  is,  in  a  similar  way,  called  by  one  of  his  Greek 
biographers,  Diogenes  Laertius,  the  firstborn  child; 
yet,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  we  know  that  Plato  had  two 
brothers  and  a  sister.  So  it  is  altogether  probable  that 
Luke  uses  this  word  in  its  literal  sense,  and  implies 
that  there  were  other  children  born  to  Mary  and  Joseph 
after  the  birth  of  our  Saviour.  While  the  words  in 
Luke  cannot  be  said  to  make  it  certain,  they  at  least 
show  that,  in  the  mind  of  the  writer,  there  was  no 
prejudice  against  the  idea  that  Mary  should  have  had 
other  children.  He  never  thought  it  necessary  to  the 
sanctity  of  Mary  that  Jesus  should  have  been  her  only 
child. 

Christianity  gives  honor  to  marriage;  and  this  idea 
that  Mary,  the  virgin,  should  have  had  no  other  chil- 
dren than  Christ,  is  based  not  only  upon  a  misinter- 
pretation of  Scripture,  but  upon  a  radical  error  with 


326  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

regard  to  marriage  itself,  as  if  marriage  were  some- 
thing dishonorable,  and  the  married  state  was  not  so 
lofty  or  so  pure  as  the  unmarried  state.  Protestantism 
has  evermore  protested  against  such  a  doctrine  as  this. 
It  is  altogether  probable  that  Mary  had  other  children, 
and  that  these  other  children  were  the  four  whose 
names  are  given  to  us.  It  is  significant  that  James  is 
always  mentioned  as  the  first  among  them. 

Being  thus  related  to  Jesus  by  ties  of  blood,  James 
would  seem  to  have  had  claim  to  the  position  of  presi- 
dent or  pastor  of  the  church  in  Jerusalem.  It  was  not 
fit  that  an  apostle  should  have  that  permanent  relation 
to  a  local  church.  That,  I  think,  in  itself  is  an  a  priori 
argument  against  the  idea  that  the  James  of  whom  we 
are  speaking  was  an  apostle,  either  James  the  son  of 
Zebedee  or  James  the  son  of  Alphseus,  for  an  apostle 
was  one  who  had  wider  relations,  one  who  had  author- 
ity over  the  universal  church.  It  was  not  fit  that  an 
apostle  should  narrow  down  his  regards  to  a  particular 
local  body.  It  was,  rather,  proper  that  one  who  was 
outside  that  circle  of  the  apostles  should  be  the  presi- 
dent of  the  church  at  Jerusalem. 

If  this  be  true  that  James  was  the  brother — the  half- 
brother,  shall  I  say? — of  our  Lord,  is  it  not  wonder- 
ful that  Jesus,  when  he  hung  upon  the  cross  and  was 
making  provision  for  the  comfort  of  his  mother  after 
his  death,  should  not  have  commended  her  to  the  care 
of  James,  rather  than  to  the  care  of  John,  who  did  not 
belong  to  his  own  immediate  family  ?  How  plain  it  is 
that  relationship  in  the  faith  is  a  closer  relationship 
than  mere  relationship  of  blood!  When  Jesus  hung 
upon  the  cross,  neither  James,  Joses,  Simon,  nor  Judas 


THE   EPISTLE    OF   JAMES  327 

belonged  to  the  number  of  the  disciples.  They  were 
still  unbelievers!  How  unfit  it  would  have  been  that 
Jesus  should  have  commended  his  mother  to  the  care 
of  one  whose  heart  was  yet  unrenewed,  one  who  was 
not  a  disciple!  It  would  have  been  a  poor  house  to 
send  her  to;  and,  besides,  it  is  very  questionable 
whether  there  was  any  such  home.  Jesus  was  the 
elder  brother.  Jesus  was  the  head  of  that  household. 
Jesus'  death  broke  up  the  household,  and  he  had  not 
had  where  to  lay  his  head.  They  had  no  home.  John 
had  such  a  home.  John  appears  to  have  been  a  man 
of  means.  John  appears  to  have  had  a  house  in  Jeru- 
salem. Jesus  commended  his  mother  to  John  because 
John  was  a  believer ;  because  John  stood  to  Jesus  him- 
self in  a  closer  relationship  than  any  one  of  these  unbe- 
lieving brethren  did;  because  John  had  a  home  and 
was  ready  to  receive  her.  Surely  here  are  reasons 
enough  why  Jesus  should  prefer  John  to  James. 

James,  however,  was  speedily  renewed  in  the  whole 
spirit  and  temper  of  his  mind ;  and  when,  at  last,  Jesus 
had  ascended,  we  see  him,  with  his  brethren,  meeting 
together  with  the  apostles  and  with  Mary,  the  mother 
of  our  Lord,  and  with  certain  women,  in  that  upper 
chamber,  to  pray  for  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

It  was  very  natural  that  this  James  who  was  closely 
related  to  Christ,  after  he  was  converted  to  the  faith 
of  Jesus,  should  have  been  pitched  upon  as  the  very 
first  for  the  presidency  of  the  local  church.  In  spite 
of  his  previous  unbelief,  he  held  a  high  place  in  the 
minds  of  the  disciples  for  the  rectitude  of  his  life,  the 
austere  and  thoroughgoing  righteousness  of  his  con- 
duct.    He  was  surnamed  "  The  Just,"  because  of  his 


328  THE   BOOKS   OF   THE   NEW    TESTAMENT 

severe  and  unbending  integrity.  Tradition  says  of 
him  that  he  never  partook  either  of  wine  or  of  flesh, 
and  that  his  knees  were  hard  and  horny,  like  the  knees 
of  a  camel,  because  he  had  spent  so  much  time  pros- 
trate upon  them  in  prayer. 

So  we  find  James  becoming  the  head  of  the  church 
of  the  circumcision;  find  him  a  Jew,  preaching  the 
gospel  to  the  Jews;  find  him  a  pillar  of  the  church; 
and,  at  the  time  of  the  council  at  Jerusalem,  when  the 
church  at  Antioch  sent  to  ask  the  advice  of  the  Jerusa- 
lem church  with  regard  to  that  difficult  matter  of  the 
treatment  of  Gentile  converts,  we  find  him  presiding 
over  the  meeting  of  the  council  and,  when  all  has  been 
said  upon  one  side  and  upon  the  other  side,  standing 
forth  to  give  his  verdict.  And,  just  so  soon  as  he  has 
uttered  his  verdict  that  the  Gentiles  shall  be  regarded 
as  fellow  heirs,  the  whole  church  at  once  assents  to 
his  decision,  and  accepts  this  decision  as  its  own.  To 
the  very  end  of  his  life,  which  apparently  took  place 
in  the  year  62,  James  maintained  this  unbroken  con- 
sistency. It  was  the  consistency  of  a  perfect  character, 
of  a  spotless  integrity,  of  a  holy  life.  There  was  great 
fitness  in  putting  James  in  just  the  position  that  he  held, 
and  an  equal  fitness  in  his  addressing  just  the  persons 
who  are  addressed  in  this  Epistle. 

We  must  remember  that  James  was  a  Jewish  Chris- 
tian. James  apparently  never  left  the  Old  Testament 
church.  James  apparently  never  forsook  the  worship 
and  service  of  the  temple.  James  regarded  Chris- 
tianity as  a  developed  Judaism;  and  the  position  he 
takes  in  this  Epistle  reminds  us  very  strongly  of  our 
Saviour's  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  on  the  one  hand,  and 


THE    EPISTLE    OF    JAMES  329 

of  the  preaching  of  John  the  Baptist  on  the  other. 
Righteousness  of  Hfe  seems  to  be  the  keynote  of  all 
his  writing.  It  was  a  very  fit  thing  that  this  kinsman 
of  our  Lord  and  this  Puritan  Jew,  as  one  might  call 
him,  should  have  exercised  this  great  influence  and 
should  have  had  this  prominent  and  important  position 
in  the  days  of  the  Jewish  church.  How  natural  it  was 
that  he  should  be  looked  up  to  and  respected  by  the 
Jews  around  him,  as  no  other  person  could  have  been 
looked  up  to  and  respected.  There  were  many  pious 
Jews  who  might  be  influenced  in  favor  of  the  gospel, 
but  who  could  not  be  influenced  by  Gentile  Christians, 
or  by  Paul.  They  would  have  been  most  seriously  prej- 
udiced against  Paul;  but  they  could  be  influenced  in 
favor  of  the  gospel  by  one  who  was  out  and  out  a  Jew, 
who  gloried  in  the  ancestral  traditions,  who  was  care- 
ful to  maintain  the  forms  of  Jewish  righteousness,  who 
paid  respect  to  all  the  external  services  and  observ- 
ances of  the  temple.  These  things  were  dear  to  him. 
This  James  could  constitute  a  transition  from  the  old 
to  the  new,  as  almost  no  other  man  could  do.  There 
was  a  divine  providence  in  it  toward  that  multitude  of 
pious  Jews  who  could  not  break  away  from  the  ances- 
tral worship,  that  the  gospel  of  Christ  should  be  rep- 
resented so  long  and  so  faithfully  by  one  of  their  own 
number,  who  showed  them  that  Judaism  was  perfectly 
consistent  with  a  higher  faith,  and  that  they  might  be 
Christians  while  yet  at  the  same  time  they  were  Jews, 
so  far  as  the  outward  services  and  observances  of  the 
temple  were  concerned.  For  many  years,  even  for  a 
quarter  of  a  century,  Christians  did  not  give  up  the 
services  of  the  temple.    In  the  temple  and  from  house 


330  THE   BOOKS   OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

to  house  they  met,  and  they  rejoiced  in  God.  I  say 
it  was  a  marvelous  providence  to  the  pious  Jews,  who 
had  not  yet  been  convinced  of  the  truth  of  Christianity, 
that  Christ  had  a  representative  who  preached  con- 
tinually by  his  faithful  and  consistent  life,  and  by  his 
love  for  the  old  Jewish  traditions,  while  yet  at  the 
same  time  he  was  a  convert  to  the  new  religion. 

It  was  only  when  this  long  and  faithful  ministry  to 
the  Jewish  Christians  came  to  its  end;  it  was  only 
when  the  Jews,  in  the  obstinacy  of  their  unbelief,  took 
hold  of  this  same  James,  cast  him  down  from  a  pinnacle 
of  the  temple,  stoned  him  with  stones,  and  beat  him 
to  death  with  a  fuller's  club,  it  was  only  then  that  the 
iniquity  of  the  Jews  seems  to  have  reached  its  height; 
and  that  was  only  a  little  before  the  storm  of  wrath 
burst  upon  Jerusalem.  God  gave  the  Jews  a  chance  to 
receive  the  gospel  for  a  long  time  after  the  death  and 
resurrection  of  Christ,  and  he  gave  them  one  of  their 
own  number  to  preach  it  to  them.  It  was  only  when 
this  long  ministry  of  James,  the  brother  of  our  Lord, 
had  proved  utterly  unavailing  and  had  ended  in  the 
martyr's  death,  that  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  came, 
and  swept  away  that  devoted  city.  But  there  was 
great  fitness  in  such  a  representative  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament piety  being  permitted  to  hold  on  and  work, 
while,  at  the  same  time,  he  was  the  representative  of 
the  new  gospel.  James  constituted  a  bridge,  and  a 
transition,  from  the  Old  Testament  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment ministry. 

This  Epistle  of  James  has  in  it  an  interest  pecu- 
liarly its  own.  It  is  the  first  Epistle  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament.    It  is  the  earliest  written  document  of  the 


THE    EPISTLE    OF    JAMES  33 1 

whole  canon.  It  was  probably  written  as  early  as  the 
year  47,  twenty  years  before  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews and  long  before  any  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul. 
There  is  an  air  of  antiquity,  savoring  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, about  it,  such  as  there  is  about  no  other  of  the 
New  Testament  documents. 

What  was  the  occasion  of  the  writing  of  the  Epistle  ? 
It  is  evident  that,  at  the  time  it  was  written,  Chris- 
tianity had  spread  abroad,  and  that  Jewish  Christians 
had  become  so  scattered  as  to  be  called  "  the  Disper- 
sion." Yet  they  have  not  gotten  so  far  as  Antioch, 
nor  have  they  begun  to  penetrate  the  heathen  world. 
They  seem  rather  to  be  confined  still  to  the  bounds  of 
Palestine.  James  had  perhaps  been  the  means  of  con- 
verting many  of  them,  and  as  these  converts  would 
come  back,  from  time  to  time,  to  Jerusalem  to  attend 
the  feasts,  and  his  personal  connection  with  them  would 
not  cease,  he  would  follow  them  into  their  distant 
homes,  he  would  be  solicitous  in  regard  to  their  spirit- 
ual condition;  and  from  his  position  of  authority  and 
influence  he  would  naturally  write  to  them  his  instruc- 
tions and  requests. 

Tradition  relates  that  James  never  left  his  place 
of  labor  in  Jerusalem.  Whatever  influence  he  exerted 
upon  the  distant  Christians  he  exerted  by  his  writing. 
About  the  year  47,  we  may  believe,  he  wrote  this  Epis- 
tle in  order  to  correct  wrong  practices  and  tendencies 
among  the  Jewish  Christians.  It  was  not  written  to 
Jews  as  Jews.  The  twelve  tribes  that  are  scattered 
abroad  are  not  the  twelve  tribes  of  the  old  Israel ;  they 
are  the  spiritual  men  and  women  who,  from  James' 
point  of  view,  constitute  the  real  Israel.     He  can  speak 


^^2  THE    BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

of  them  as  the  real  twelve  tribes ;  and,  therefore,  he  ad- 
dresses them  with  regard  to  the  evils  that  have  begun 
to  prevail  among  them.  It  is  a  time  of  trial  and  diffi- 
culty among  them.  Many  of  them  are  poor.  Only 
here  and  there  is  there  one  who  is  rich.  The  poor  are 
full  of  discontent,  and  the  rich  are  overbearing,  tyran- 
nical, and  proud.  They  presume  upon  their  riches, 
they  oppress  their  poor  brethren.  So  easy  it  is  to  see 
that  the  early  church  was  not  immaculate.  James 
looked  abroad  and  recognized  the  fact  that  even  the 
gospel  of  Christ  had  not  made  the  Christians  all  they 
ought  to  be,  and  he  tried  to  remedy  these  difficulties  by 
writing  to  them  an  Epistle.  All  this  takes  place  appar- 
ently before  the  Apostolic  Council,  for  you  notice  there 
is  not  the  slightest  reference  to  the  subsequent  con- 
troversies with  regard  to  justification  by  faith.  Al- 
though James  uses  the  word  justification,  there  is  no 
probability  that  he  alluded  to  Paul ;  in  fact,  the  Epistle 
of  James  was  written  before  even  Paul's  first  Epistle 
to  the  Thessalonians  had  seen  the  light. 

The  Epistle  is  not  a  doctrinal  Epistle  at  all.  It 
is  a  practical  Epistle,  written  to  correct  practical  evils. 
How  does  the  apostle  correct  them?  Why,  he  repre- 
sents Christianity  as  the  royal  law,  as  the  perfected 
law.  The  gospel,  and  God's  new  requisitions  in  Christ, 
are  merely  an  expansion,  an  enlargement,  an  interpre- 
tation of  the  law  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  the  per- 
fected law  of  liberty,  and  it  is  a  law  in  which,  if  a 
man  looks  as  into  a  mirror,  he  sees  his  own  reflection ; 
he  sees  the  reflection  of  his  own  sin  and  his  own  needs  ; 
and  he  sees  the  wav  of  salvation  that  has  been  provided 
by  God  through  his  Son.    And  so  the  whole  substance 


THE    EPISTLE    OF   JAMES  333 

of  this  Epistle  might  be  put  into  those  few  words,  ''  Be 
not  hearers  of  the  law,  but  be  doers  also."  In  other 
words,  the  apostle  was  grieved  at  the  fact  there  were 
so  many  that  regarded  their  whole  work  as  done  when 
they  had  but  merely  an  external  faith  in  Christ,  and 
he  claims  that  mere  faith  in  Christ  that  is  intellectual 
and  theoretical  is  of  no  value ;  that  that  is  not  the  real 
faith  of  the  gospel;  that  the  real  faith  of  the  gospel 
is  a  faith  that  will  make  men  faithful.  The  faith  that 
saves  is  a  faith  that  works  by  love  and  purifies  the 
heart ;  and  every  other  faith  is  a  dead  faith.  Man  is 
saved  by  a  living  faith,  he  is  saved  by  a  faith  that  will 
do  something  for  him ;  he  is  saved  by  a  faith  that  will 
bring  him  into  connection  with  a  living  Christ,  and  so 
will  lead  to  the  purification  of  his  life  and  heart.  James 
is  indignant  with  those  who  declare  that  they  have  the 
faith  of  Christ,  and  who  yet  are  immoral  or  inconsistent 
in  their  practical  lives.  This  is  the  whole  substance  of 
the  Epistle.  There  is  not  much  organized  material, 
there  is  not  much  structure,  as  there  is  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews.  You  cannot  analyze  it  so  easily  as  some 
other  Epistles.  It  is  a  series  of  admonitions  and  pre- 
cepts, directed  to  the  practical  life  of  the  Christian 
church. 

Luther  had  great  difficulty  with  this  Epistle  of 
James.  It  was  a  stumbling-block  to  the  great  reformer 
to  the  very  end  of  his  days.  He  said  some  very  hard 
things  about  it.  He  said,  "  The  Epistle  of  James  is  a 
veritable  epistle  of  straw."  He  counted  it  to  be  no 
apostolic  writing.  He  said  that  it  was  destitute  of  the 
substance  of  the  gospel.  And  why  ?  Why,  because  he 
thought  it  inconsistent  with  Paul's  doctrine  of  salva- 


334  THE   BOOKS   OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT 

tion  by  faith.  Ah,  Luther  was  a  great  hero,  and  a 
great  reformer,  but  he  was  a  great  deal  narrower 
than  Jesus  Christ  and  his  gospel.  Luther  did  not  un- 
derstand James,  and  he  would  have  done  far  better  if 
he  had  suspended  his  judgment  and  waited  for  more 
light.  The  truth  is,  that  profession  of  faith  in  Christ 
which  makes  a  mere  external  idea  of  Christ  the  sub- 
stance of  the  gospel  is  no  better  than  heathenism.  That 
profession  of  faith  in  Christ  which  regards  Christianity 
itself  as  being  nothing  but  an  intellectual  or  historical 
belief,  is  no  better  than  heathenism.  Says  James,  a 
man  is  not  justified  by  faith  only;  he  is  justified  also 
by  works.  That  seemed  to  Luther  a  very  contradiction 
of  the  apostle  Paul.  The  apostle  Paul  says  we  are 
justified  by  faith.  James  meant  just  the  same  thing  as 
the  apostle  Paul,  only  James  meant  that  a  man  is  justi- 
fied only  by  the  faith  that  brings  forth  good  works, 
and  that  any  other  faith  is  not  faith  at  all.  James' 
criticism,  therefore,  is  not  a  criticism  of  the  doctrine 
of  justification,  but  of  the  nature  of  faith.  James  is 
criticizing  the  manner  of  faith  that  so  many  had  who 
had  professed  faith,  while  they  were  destitute  of  the 
spirit  of  love  and  of  self-sacrifice.  Why,  I  tell  you 
that 'Such  faith  is  dead;  and,  if  a  man  tells  me  that  he 
has  faith  and  does  not  have  any  works  at  all,  I  say 
that  he  has  not  the  true  faith  of  the  gospel — that  is, 
not  the  faith  that  saves.  The  faith  that  saves  is  the 
faith  that  will  do  something  for  a  man  in  making  him 
over  again,  and  making  him  obedient  to  the  commands 
of  Christ. 

Paul  and  James  seem  at  first  sight  to  teach  oppo- 
site doctrines,  when  Paul  says  that  man  is  justified  by 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   JAMES  335 

faith,  and  James  says  that  man  is  justified  by  works. 
But  there  is  no  contrariety  at  all  between  them.  Each 
of  them  is  fighting  a  different  man;  they  are  striking 
out  against  different  errors;  they  are  not  striking  at 
each  other.  Dr,  William  M.  Taylor  has  given  us  a 
useful  illustration.  A  couple  of  men  are  surprised  in 
a  dark  wood  by  a  band  of  robbers;  one  says  to  the 
other:  ''Let  us  stand  back  to  back;  you  strike  out 
against  the  men  on  your  side,  and  I  will  strike  out 
against  the  men  on  my  side."  They  are  not  striking 
against  each  other,  but  one  is  striking  one  foe  and  the 
other  is  striking  another  foe.  So  Paul  is  striking  at 
the  men  that  deny  justification.  James  is  striking  at 
the  men  that  deny  faith.  It  is  a  different  enemy  that 
each  one  has  in  mind,  and  the  two  doctrines  together 
are  hemispheres  that  make  up  the  whole  globe  of  truth. 
It  is  a  good  deal,  as  the  old  illustration  had  it,  like  a 
man  in  a  boat.  If  he  rows  with  one  oar  alone  he  will 
go  round  and  round,  and  make  no  progress  at  all;  if 
he  puts  that  oar  down,  takes  up  the  other  oar,  and 
rows  with  that,  then  he  will  go  round  and  round,  only 
in  a  different  direction.  The  only  true  way  is  to  take 
both  oars,  and  both  oars  at  once.  The  gospel  is  the 
gospel  of  faith  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  works  on  the 
other.  We  must  use  both  oars  if  we  ever  are  going  to 
get  into  the  kingdom. 

The  true  gospel  of  Christ,  therefore,  is  a  gospel 
of  salvation  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  of  salvation  by 
faith  alone;  for  it  is  only  by  trusting  what  the  Lord 
has  done  that  you  can  ever  be  saved;  but  that  faith 
will  necessarily  bring  you  into  such  relation  to  Christ 
that  you  will  be  like   Christ  and  will   obey  Christ. 


33^  THE    BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Your  faith  will  show  itself  in  a  holy  life;  and  if  there 
is  no  holy  life,  there  is  no  true  faith.  Therefore  Luther 
was  narrow.  He  did  not  know  the  whole  gospel,  al- 
though he  knew  a  part  of  it ;  and  the  lesson  that  is  left 
to  us  is  most  important.  We  should  lack  one  of  the 
most  important  teachings  of  the  New  Testament  if 
the  Epistle  of  James  were  not  ours.  We  should  lack 
the  great  doctrine  that  those  who  have  laid  hold  of 
Christ  and  have  put  faith  in  him  must  be  sure  also  to 
maintain  good  works.  We  are  saved  by  faith  alone; 
but  faith  is  never  alone;  it  always  brings  good  works 
in  its  train ;  it  works  by  love,  and  purifies  the  heart. 


THE  EPISTLES  OF  PETER 

The  apostle  Peter  was  the  son  of  Jonas  or  John,  two 
different  versions  of  the  same  name.  Peter  was  not, 
however,  his  original  name.  He  was  Simeon  at  first, 
or  Simon,  which  is  the  same  thing ;  and  the  name  Peter 
was  given  him  by  Christ  in  anticipation.  The  Saviour 
says  to  him,  ''  Thou  shalt  be  called  Peter  " ;  but  with 
an  intimation  that  he  has  not  yet  the  spirit  which  would 
make  that  designation  a  true  one;  and  it  is  only  two 
years  afterward,  at  least,  that  Jesus  says  to  him,  "  Thou 
art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  will  I  build  my  church." 

Peter  was  a  fisherman  of  Bethsaida :  that  is,  Beth- 
saida  was  his  native  place,  but  at  the  time  he  was 
chosen  by  Christ  he  appears  to  have  belonged  to  the 
city  of  Capernaum.  There,  during  the  greater  part 
of  the  Gospel  narrative,  he  had  his  home ;  and,  like  the 
sons  of  Zebedee,  he  pursued  the  trade  of  fishing  for  his 
livelihood. 

Peter  seems  to  have  been  brought  to  Christ  first  by 
Andrew,  his  brother.  Christ's  first  call  was  on  the 
banks  of  the  Jordan,  where  Peter  and  Andrew,  James 
and  John  seem  to  have  gone,  amid  the  multitude  who 
were  thronging  to  John  the  Baptist,  to  be  baptized. 
After  a  slight  sojourn  with  Christ,  and  having  become 
acquainted  with  him,  Peter,  with  his  brother  and  with 
James  and  John,  appears  to  have  gone  back  to  his  trade 
once  more  and  to  have  pursued  it  until  Jesus  met  them 
by  the  side  of  the  Lake  of  Galilee,  called  them  to  be  his 
w  337 


338  THE    BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

permanent  companions,  and  invested  them  with  the 
responsibihties  of  apostleship. 

From  that  time  you  find  Peter  continually  with 
Jesus.  He  becomes  one  of  our  Lord's  most  intimate 
companions.  He  is  one  of  those  chosen  disciples  who 
constituted  the  innermost  circle  of  the  apostolic  num- 
ber. He  is  with  the  Saviour  when  Jesus  raises  Jairus' 
daughter  from  the  dead.  He  is  with  Jesus  upon  the 
Mount  of  Transfiguration,  and  beholds  his  glory;  he 
is  with  Christ  in  the  Garden  of  Gethsemane,  when  the 
Saviour  utters  that  memorable  prayer  and  sweats  those 
drops  of  blood.  Jesus  calls  Peter  to  himself,  because 
there  is  something  in  Peter  which  fits  him  for  leader- 
ship. I  imagine  that  each  one  of  the  disciples  had  his 
peculiar  gift  and  qualifications  for  service.  Judas,  for 
example,  was  a  practical  administrator.  Judas  would 
have  made  an  excellent  manipulator  and  manager.  He 
was  treasurer,  because  there  were  certain  business  gifts 
which  were  his,  more  than  they  belonged  to  any  other 
of  the  disciples.  He  had  his  opportunity.  He  had  his 
chance  to  use  what  gifts  he  had  for  the  service  of  the 
Lord. 

And  Peter  had  especially  an  openness  and  receptivity 
of  heart,  an  ardent  affection  and  power  of  recognizing 
Christ  In  his  personal  and  divine  mission,  and  then  a 
zealous  and  enthusiastic  activity,  which  fitted  him,  in 
some  respects,  to  be  the  chief  of  the  apostles.  And  yet, 
this  ardent  affection,  this  Insight  Into  the  real  person 
and  work  of  Christ,  this  enthusiastic  activity,  were 
accompanied  by  a  rashness  and  overconfidence  which 
led  Peter  to  his  triple  fall  and  triple  denial  of  his 
Master,  and  were  followed  by  the  bitterest  repentance, 


THE    EPISTLES    OF    PETER  339 

Jesus  looked  upon  Peter  after  that  denial,  and  that 
look  broke  Peter's  heart.  He  went  out  and  wept  bit- 
terly. He  repented.  But  he  needed  some  special  as- 
surance of  Jesus'  forgiving  love.  After  Jesus  arose 
from  the  dead  there  was  something  very  affecting  in 
his  words  to  the  women,  "  Go  and  tell  Peter."  It 
was  a  special  message  to  Peter  that  his  heart  might  be 
comforted  by  the  assurance  of  Christ's  forgiving  love. 
Is  there  not  something  very  beautiful  in  this,  that  this 
denying  Peter  is  made  the  mouthpiece  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  upon  the  day  of  Pentecost?  Have  we  ever 
thought  that  our  sins  would  prevent  us  evermore  from 
being  of  service  in  the  cause  of  Christ  ?  Let  us  remem- 
ber that  it  was  that  denying  Peter  who  was  made  by 
Christ  the  means  of  bringing  three  thousand  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  truth  and  of  being  the  first  communi- 
cator of  the  gospel  to  his  Jewish  countrymen.  And  it 
is  not  only  true  that  Peter  becomes  the  first  preacher 
to  the  Jews,  but  he  becomes  the  first  preacher  to  the 
Gentiles  also;  for  I  suppose  that  is  the  meaning  of 
the  promise  to  Peter  that  the  keys  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  shall  be  given  to  him.  Christ  gave  him  the 
keys  in  this  sense,  that  he  was  the  first  to  unlock  the 
door  of  the  kingdom  to  the  Jews,  and  he  was  the  first 
also  to  unlock  the  door  of  the  kingdom  to  the  Gentiles. 
There  were  two  great  doors  to  be  opened ;  Peter  opened 
the  first  great  door  when  at  Pentecost  he  proclaimed 
salvation  through  the  crucified  One  to  the  Jews  who 
had  put  the  Saviour  to  death ;  he  opened  the  second 
great  door  when,  going  to  Cornelius  at  Caesarea,  he 
proclaimed  the  gospel  of  Christ  to  the  heathen,  and 
opened  the  door  of  salvation  to  the  Gentiles.     In  a 


340  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

certain  sense  this  denying  Peter  was  given  the  first 
place  in  the  kingdom  of  God ;  it  was  upon  Peter  that 
Christ  built  his  church.  ''Thou  art  Peter;  upon  this 
rock  I  will  build  my  church."  The  word  ''  Peter  " 
meant  ''  rock." 

But  it  is  not  upon  Peter,  as  a  person  alone,  that  the 
church  is  founded,  as  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  im- 
agines; but  it  is  upon  Peter  as  a  confessor  of  Christ. 
It  is  upon  Peter,  as  he  has  Christ  in  him.  Peter  can 
become  a  rock  upon  which  the  church  is  built,  only  as 
he  becomes  one  with  Christ,  the  great  corner-stone. 
Peter  can  be  the  means  of  bringing  others  into  the 
kingdom  of  God,  only  as  he  is  a  true  confessor  of  Jesus 
Christ  and  a  proclaimer  of  his  gospel. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  errs  very  greatly  when 
she  fancies  that  there  is  a  sort  of  apostolic  succession, 
and  that,  in  an  external  way,  through  persons,  there 
can  be  communicated  the  grace  of  God.  No,  it  is  not 
in  any  external  way,  or  by  any  external  means,  that 
salvation  comes  down  to  man.  It  is  through  Peter 
as  a  confessor.  It  is  through  Peter  as  he  has  Christ  in 
him;  and,  therefore,  every  one  who  is  a  confessor  of 
Christ  and  is  joined  to  Christ  has  the  privilege  of 
bringing  in  others  also,  and  upon  every  true  confessor 
of  Christ  the  church  is  built.  Protestants  have  some- 
times erred  in  thinking  it  is  simply  the  confession  upon 
which  the  church  is  built;  as  if  some  external  creed 
alone  could  be  the  means  of  bringing  men  to  the  king- 
dom of  God.  That  is  no  more  true  than  the  Roman 
Catholic  doctrine.  You  must  have  the  person  and  his 
confession.  You  must  have  Peter  plus  the  truth.  The 
truth  alone,  as  an  abstract  thing,  will  not  bring  men  to 


THE    EPISTLES    OF    PETER  34I 

God ;  but  the  person  plus  the  truth  brings  men  to  God. 
The  ''  rock,"  therefore,  is  both  confession  and  heart. 
It  is  personahty  plus  the  truth. 

So  Peter  becomes  the  means  of  bringing  in  both 
Jews  and  Gentiles.  At  the  ApostoHc  Council,  when 
Paul  comes  to  narrate  what  God  has  done  for  the  Gen- 
tiles, Peter  is  one  of  the  first  to  acquiesce  in  the  decision 
which  James  has  uttered  and  to  sanction  this  opening 
of  the  door  to  the  Gentiles  without  their  becoming 
Jews.  Afterward  Peter  was  privately  and  individually 
unfaithful  to  this  position  which  he  took;  for,  at  An- 
tioch,  he  refused  to  associate  with  certain  Gentile 
Christians,  in  order  that  he  might  gratify  those  who 
were  prejudiced  in  favor  of  Jewish  doctrine;  but  he 
was  rebuked  by  Paul;  and  we  do  not  find  that  this 
error  of  his  continued  at  all;  in  fact,  we  do  not  find 
that  he  ever  preached  it.  It  was  simply  an  instance 
of  unfaithfulness  in  his  private  conduct  to  the  truth 
which  he  had  publicly  proclaimed. 

After  having  opened  the  door  of  the  kingdom  both 
to  Jews  and  Gentiles,  by  the  keys  of  faith  and  confes- 
sion which  Christ  had  committed  to  him,  Peter  appears 
to  have  less  prominence  in  the  apostolic  history.  Why? 
Because  there  was  to  be  a  transition  from  the  Jews  to 
the  Gentiles.  Paul  was  the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles  par 
excellence;  and,  although  we  find  Peter  most  prominent 
at  the  beginning  of  the  Acts,  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
Acts  we  find  that  Paul  occupies  most  of  the  room  and 
attracts  to  himself  most  of  the  attention. 

Tradition  relates  that  Peter  went  to  the  East,  that 
he  preached  to  the  Jews  In  Babylon.  In  fact,  this 
First  Epistle  declares  itself  to  have  been  written  from 


342  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Babylon,  and  Babylon,  I  suppose,  was  not  a  mythical 
name  for  Rome,  as  some  have  supposed.  It  never  as- 
sumed that  mythical  signification  until  after  John  had 
written  his  Apocalypse.  At  the  time  when  this  Epistle 
was  written  we  have  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  word 
''  Babylon  "  was  used  for  Rome.  In  an  Epistle  like 
this,  in  plain  prose,  we  should  hardly  expect  that  the 
word  Babylon  would  be  used  in  that  figurative,  rhe-" 
torical,  poetical  sense. 

There  was  a  very  large  colony  of  Jews  at  Babylon ; 
and  Peter  seems  to  have  gravitated  toward  the  East  of 
the  Roman  Empire,  as  Paul  gravitated  toward  the 
West  As  the  larger  part  of  the  Jews  were  in  the  East 
rather  than  in  the  West,  the  apostle  to  the  Jews  seems 
to  have  had  the  chosen  sphere  of  his  activity  there, 
while  Paul,  the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  had  his  chosen 
sphere  of  activity  westward,  toward  Rome,  ever  tend- 
ing toward  Rome,  until  at  Rome  he  died.  Some  one 
will  ask :  Is  it,  therefore,  entirely  a  mythical  thing  that 
Peter  was  crucified  at  Rome,  that  he  was  the  founder 
of  the  Roman  church,  that  he  suffered  martyrdom  there 
by  being  crucified  with  his  head  downward?  Well, 
with  regard  to  that,  the  historians  of  the  church  are  at 
variance  to  this  very  day.  It  certainly  appears  that 
Peter  had  not  been  at  Rome  at  the  time  that  Paul  wrote 
his  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  It  would  be  almost  inex- 
plicable that  there  should  be  no  mention  of  Peter  if 
Peter  had  founded  the  Roman  church.  It  would  be 
impossible  for  Paul  to  have  written  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  without  mentioning  Peter,  if  Peter  was  there 
or  had  been  there.  We  have  no  evidence  in  all  the 
Epistles  which  Paul  wrote  during  his  imprisonment  at 


THE    EPISTLES    OF    PETER 


343 


Rome  that  Peter  was  there  in  Rome  or  that  he  had  ever 
preached  there  at  all.  I  think,  therefore,  that  the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Romans  is,  in  itself,  a  strong  argument 
against  the  claims  of  the  papacy,  against  the  claim  that 
the  bishops  of  Rome  derived  their  apostolic  descent 
directly  from  Peter.  It  never  can  be  proved  that  Peter 
was  in  Rome  at  all.  If  Peter  ever  was  in  Rome,  it 
seems  to  me  altogether  probable  that  he  was  in  Rome 
after  Paul  had  suffered  martyrdom,  and  that  he  went 
to  Rome  to  take  Paul's  place  and  preach  the  gospel 
after  Paul  was  taken  away.  But  I  think  we  shall  have 
to  leave  the  question  in  abeyance.  With  the  light  we 
now  have  it  cannot  be  decided.  All  we  know  in  regard 
to  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter  is  that  it  was  written  from 
Babylon,  the  far  east  of  the  Roman  Empire. 

To  whom  was  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter  written? 
It  appears  to  have  been  written  to  the  churches  that 
were  founded  by  Paul.  If  you  notice  the  address  of 
the  First  Epistle  you  will  see  that  it  purports  to  come 
from  Peter,  "  an  apostle  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to 
the  elect  sojourners  of  the  Dispersion."  By  the  Disper- 
sion Peter  meant  the  true  Israel  of  God,  those  Chris- 
tians who  were  scattered  abroad.  After  the  Assyrian 
and  Babylonian  captivities,  the  Jews  were  scattered 
among  all  the  nations  of  the  earth;  they  had  syna- 
gogues in  every  large  city  of  the  Roman  Empire ;  and 
there  were  multitudes  of  them  throughout  Asia  Minor. 
As  Jews  were  scattered  about  through  the  Roman  Em- 
pire, and  Christians  constituted  the  true  Israel,  this 
word  "  Dispersion  "  came  to  be  applied  to  the  scattered 
Christians ;  and  Peter  writes  his  Epistle  to  the  "  elect 
sojourners  of  the  Dispersion,"  that  is,  the  Christians 


344  TliE   BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

that  were  dispersed  throughout  the  whole  of  Asia 
Minor ;  then  he  proceeds  to  mention  them  in  the  order 
that  would  naturally  occur  to  one  writing  from  the 
East.  He  begins,  for  example,  with  Pontus,  which  was 
farthest  to  the  east;  then  he  mentions  Galatia;  then 
Cappadocia ;  and  finally  he  mentions  the  two  provinces 
that  were  farthest  westward,  namely,  Asia,  in  the  nar- 
row sense,  and  Bithynia.  So,  in  the  very  order  of  the 
provinces  we  have  a  new  evidence  that  it  was  from 
Babylon,  and  not  from  Rome,  that  the  Epistle  was  writ- 
ten. But  all  these  churches  of  Asia  Minor  were 
churches  that  had  directly  or  indirectly  owed  their 
foundation  to  the  apostle  Paul;  and  it  was  a  sort  of 
rule  with  the  apostles  not  to  invade  the  sphere  of  one 
another's  labors.  There  was  no  place  or  church  that 
had  Epistles  written  to  it,  near  the  same  time,  by  two 
of  the  apostles.  Paul  would  not  invade  the  sphere  of 
another  man's  labors ;  he  built  on  his  own  foundations ; 
and  just  so,  Peter  would  not  invade  Paul's  sphere  of 
labor,  if  the  apostle  Paul  were  still  living. 

These  Epistles  of  Peter,  therefore,  could  not  have 
been  written  until  after  the  death  of  the  apostle  Paul, 
or  at  least  after  Paul  had  withdrawn  from  active  work. 
Possibly  this  First  Epistle  may  have  been  written  dur- 
ing Paul's  first  imprisonment,  when  he  could  not  attend 
to  the  churches ;  but  it  is  more  likely  that  both  the  First 
and  the  Second  Epistles  were  written  after  Paul's 
death.  Peter  then  assumed  the  charge  of  the  churches 
for  which  Paul  had  cared ;  and  so,  in  a  similar  manner, 
the  Epistles  to  the  seven  churches,  which  we  find  in  the 
book  of  Revelation,  were  not  written  until  after  Paul 
had  suffered  martyrdom.    The  Epistles  of  Peter,  then, 


THE    EPISTLES    OF    PETER  345 

were  written  from  the  East,  after  the  death  of  the  apos- 
tle Paul ;  and  as  the  apostle  Paul  suffered  martyrdom  in 
the  year  64,  or  some  part  of  the  year  65,  we  certainly 
cannot  put  the  date  of  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter  earlier 
than  the  year  66.  This  is  as  near  to  the  date  of  the 
two  Epistles  as  any  year  that  we  can  assign;  and  we 
find  that  Peter  is  striving  to  assist  and  encourage  these 
churches  of  Asia  Minor,  after  the  great  leader,  the 
apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  has  been  taken  away. 

There  are  indications  that  much  apostolic  labor  had 
preceded  Peter's  writing,  and  this  labor  Peter  himself 
had  not  performed.  He  takes  it  for  granted  that  these 
churches  have  already  a  complete  system  of  Christian 
doctrine.  He  does  not  seek  to  indoctrinate  them,  but 
assumes  that  they  already  know  the  truth,  and  that  they 
need  only  to  have  the  truth  brought  vividly  to  their 
remembrance.  The  churches  to  which  he  writes  are 
not  only  in  possession  of  this  complete  system  of  doc- 
trine, but  they  are  now  involved  in  persecution;  not 
apparently  persecution  by  the  civil  power,  but  persecu- 
tion of  a  social  sort  from  their  Jewish  countrymen,  and 
from  overweening  and  arrogant  heathen.  They  need 
strengthening  against  this  persecution  from  those  who 
ought  to  help  them  in  their  Christian  life.  They  also 
need  instruction  with  regard  to  their  conduct  toward 
the  heathen  about  them,  lest  evil  example  tempt  them  to 
impurity  of  life.  And  finally,  there  are  tendencies  to 
critical  and  censorious  judgment  among  them,  and 
their  pastors  and  leaders  are  somewhat  in  danger  of 
being  infected  by  ambition  and  of  lording  it  over  God's 
people.  These  are  the  influences  which  Peter,  in  his 
First  Epistle,  tries  to  counteract. 


346  THE   BOOKS   OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

There  is  something  striking  in  the  Epistles  of  Peter 
as  to  the  style  and  method  of  address.  Peter's  Epistles 
show  very  strong  traces  of  the  influence  of  the  apostle 
Paul.  In  that  respect  too,  we  have  an  evidence  that  the 
apostle  Peter  wrote  after  the  apostle  Paul.  Peter  was 
one  of  those  open-hearted  souls  that  receive  from  every 
hand.  He  had  insensibly  taken  in  many  of  the  ideas 
of  the  apostle  Paul,  and  not  only  the  ideas  of  Paul,  but 
some  of  Paul's  methods  of  expression.  Peter  had  seen 
writings  of  the  apostle  Paul  before  he  himself  wrote; 
in  fact,  in  the  Second  Epistle,  he  says  of  Paul's  Episdes 
that  in  them  "  there  are  many  things  hard  to  be  under- 
stood, which  those  who  are  unstable  wrest  to  their  own 
destruction,  as  they  do  the  other  Scriptures." 

Is  it  not  a  sign  of  the  nobility  of  this  apostle  that, 
with  all  his  prestige  and  influence,  he  should  declare 
his  approval  and  give  his  sanction  to  the  writings  of 
the  apostle  Paul;  that  he  should  recognize  them  as 
Scripture  like  the  Old  Testament  (for,  when  he  speaks 
of  "  other  Scriptures,"  it  is  the  Old  Testament,  un- 
questionably, of  which  he  speaks)  ;  that  he  should  as- 
sign to  them  an  equal  authority  with  the  writings  of  the 
prophets,  and  say  that  the  things  in  them  which  are 
difficult  to  be  understood  are  worthy  of  all  respect,  as 
if  they  were  the  very  utterances  of  Christ  himself? 
How  devoid  of  jealousy,  how  generous,  how  magnani- 
mous, how  full  of  the  spirit  of  love  and  self-sacrifice ! 
How  well  he  has  subdued  all  private  feeling  to  the  in- 
terest of  Christ !  There  is  something  very  noble  in  all 
this.  But  it  is  not  surprising.  Paul,  a  long  time  be- 
fore, had  put  the  Christian  truth  into  correct  form,  and 
in  this  respect  was  the  greatest  of  the  apostles.     Only 


THE    EPISTLES    OF    PETER  347 

James  had  preceded  Paul,  and  the  Epistle  of  James 
had  no  such  currency  as  had  the  writings  of  the  apostle 
Paul,  being  destined  for  a  narrow  circle  of  Jews,  while 
Paul's  were  sent  abroad  to  all  the  Gentile  churches  and 
were  spread  quickly  through  the  world.  It  is  not  sur- 
prising that  Peter  should  have  been  greatly  influenced 
by  Paul's  doctrine  and  by  Paul's  method  of  expression. 

If  you  will  take  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter  and  read 
the  opening  of  it,  "  Blessed  be  the  God  and  Father  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  you  will  see  that  there  is 
something  to  remind  you  very  vividly  of  Paul's  Epistle 
to  the  Ephesians.  Peter  unquestionably  had  in  his 
hands  the  writings  of  Paul ;  he  had  studied  them  care- 
fully and  had  been  influenced  by  them.  In  Peter's 
First  Epistle  we  find  Silvanus,  or  Silas,  mentioned,  and 
Mark  also,  two  of  Paul's  principal  helpers.  Here  is  a 
link  of  connection  between  Peter  and  Paul.  We  can 
trace  the  history  of  Silas  and  the  history  of  Mark  down 
to  the  close  of  Paul's  life.  After  Paul's  martyrdom  it 
would  seem  that  these  friends  and  companions  of  his 
made  their  way  to  the  East  to  the  apostle  Peter;  that 
they  brought  with  them  the  letters  which  Paul  had 
written  to  the  various  churches ;  that  Peter  made  them 
a  subject  of  study;  and  that  Peter  then  wrote  to  the 
churches  that  were  now  orphans  by  the  apostle's  death, 
expressed  his  sanction  of  all  that  Paul  had  written,  and 
then  added  his  own  instructions  for  their  present  con- 
dition and  needs. 

When  we  come  to  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter  we 
find  that  it  is  written  to  practically  the  same  persons 
or  communities,  because,  in  the  third  chapter  and  first 
verse,  Peter  says,  "  This  second  epistle  I  write  unto 


348  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

you,  brethren."  But  this  Second  Epistle  has  a  slightly 
different  object  from  the  first.  The  dangers  and  diffi- 
culties counteracted  in  the  second  are  internal,  whereas 
those  in  the  first  are  external.  As,  in  the  first,  it  was 
the  heathen  with  whom  the  people  of  God  had  to  deal 
and  who  persecuted  them,  so,  in  the  Second  Epistle,  it 
seems  to  be  the  false  teachers  within  the  church.  Li- 
centious professors  of  religion,  and  profane  scoffers, 
seem  to  be  within  the  body.  Trouble  had  already 
arisen,  and  the  object  of  the  Second  Epistle  is  to  coun- 
teract these  internal  difficulties;  whereas  the  object  of 
the  First  Epistle  is  to  strengthen  and  comfort  and  en- 
courage the  churches  in  their  endurance  of  persecutions 
from  without. 

This  Second  Epistle  of  Peter  is  the  Epistle  of  all 
the  New  Testament  with  regard  to  whose  genuineness 
there  has  been  most  dispute.  Many  people  who  are 
convinced  of  the  authenticity  and  genuineness  of  all 
the  other  books  of  the  New  Testament,  declare  that 
with  regard  to  this  Second  Epistle  of  Peter  they  are 
in  great  doubt;  and  it  is  well  for  us  to  understand  the 
exact  state  of  the  case.  The  fact  seems  to  be  that  it 
is  not  until  the  year  230,  almost  two  centuries  after  the 
Saviour's  death,  that  we  have  an  express  mention  of 
this  Second  Epistle  of  Peter.  This  first  mention  of 
the  Epistle  is  by  Origen,  the  church  Father,  and  he 
mentions  it  in  a  very  peculiar  way.  He  says :  "  We 
have  one  Epistle  of  Peter  which  is  universally  ac- 
cepted; and,  if  you  will,  a  second,  for  this  is  ques- 
tioned." While  he  mentions  the  Second  Epistle  of 
Peter  as  being  in  existence,  he  says  that  it  is  ques- 
tionable whether  it  is  a  genuine  work  of  the  apostle. 


THE   EPISTLES   OF    PETER  349 

It  is  not  until  the  year  250  that  we  have  the  first  clear 
witness  to  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  with  an  accept- 
ance of  the  Epistle;  this  is  by  Firmilian,  a  bishop  of 
Cappadocia.  The  church  historians  mention  it  among 
the  Antilegomena,  the  books  that  are  spoken  against. 
Jerome,  in  the  fourth  century,  investigated  the  claims 
of  the  Epistle  and  admitted  it  to  the  Latin  Vulgate, 
while,  at  the  same  time,  he  recorded  the  objections 
against  it. 

It  was  not  until  the  year  372  that  the  Council  of 
Laodicea  formally  admitted  it  to  the  canon.  But  that 
was  a  council  held  in  the  East;  and  it  was  not  until 
the  year  397,  almost  four  hundred  years  after  Christ, 
that  the  Council  of  Carthage,  in  the  West,  admitted  it 
formally  to  the  canon.  The  history  of  this  Epistle  is 
manifestly  quite  different  from  that  of  any  other  New 
Testament  document. 

How  can  we  account  for  all  this  strange  lateness  in 
getting  into  circulation  and  acceptance  in  the  Christian 
church  ?  Is  all  this  consistent  with  the  genuineness  and 
the  inspiration  of  the  Epistle  ?  I  think  it  is ;  and  I  ven- 
ture an  explanation,  though  my  explanation  can  be 
only  a  plausible  hypothesis.  These  Epistles  were  cer- 
tainly written  very  late  in  the  apostle's  life.  Peter 
must  have  been  a  somewhat  old  man  in  the  year  66, 
when  we  say  the  Epistle  was  probably  written.  How 
old  was  Peter  at  the  time  of  the  Saviour's  death  ?  We 
should  think,  should  we  not,  that  the  apostle  Peter  was 
older  than  our  Lord?  Then,  in  the  year  66,  he  was 
thirty-three  years  older  than  when  Jesus  died.  He 
must  have  been  sixty-six,  if  he  was  born  at  the  same 
time  with  Christ;  but  if  older  than  Christ,  then  he 


350 


THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 


must  have  been,  say,  seventy-six  or  possibly  eighty. 
We  think  of  him  as  much  older  than  the  apostle  John ; 
and  in  the  Second  Epistle  we  see  the  marks  of  age ;  he 
is  getting  toward  his  end;  he  says  the  time  of  his  de- 
parture is  at  hand ;  he  wishes  to  leave  his  remembrance 
to  the  church,  and  to  give  them  something  that  will 
instruct  them  and  comfort  them  and  encourage  them 
after  he  is  gone.  These  are  the  words  of  an  old  man. 
These  two  Epistles  seem  to  be  written  in  the  old  age 
of  the  apostle,  and  just  before  his  death. 

And  how  did  he  die?  Why,  tradition  says  that  he 
suffered  martyrdom.  This  is  an  indication  of  perse- 
cution, and  the  persecution  would  have  been  persecu- 
tion not  simply  of  himself,  but  persecution  of  other 
Christians  also.  An  Epistle  written  just  before  his 
martyrdom,  and  just  before  a  general  persecution  of 
the  church,  would  certainly  find  some  difficulties  in  the 
way  of  its  rapid  dissemination.  Persecution  might 
require  it  to  be  hidden  for  a  time.  Years  may  have 
passed  before  it  safely  could  be  brought  out  from  its 
obscurity.  I  think  we  can  easily  see  that  there  may 
have  been  reasons  why  this  Epistle  should  have  come 
later  into  general  circulation  than  any  of  the  other 
Epistles  of  the  New  Testament.  Written  far  away 
at  the  East,  with  no  daily  mails,  no  express-trains,  no 
post-office,  no  press,  it  had  to  be  transcribed  word  by 
word,  a  single  copy  at  a  time.  It  took  long  to  circulate 
the  documents  of  the  New  Testament  through  the 
Christian  church.  To  make  an  Epistle  written  in  Baby- 
lon fully  known  in  western  Rome  may  have  required  a 
whole  generation,  and  intervening  persecution  may  have 
prevented  the  multiplication  of  copies  for  a  century. 


THE    EPISTLES    OF    PETER  35 1 

There  are  some  curious  analogies  in  modern  times 
which  may  throw  light  upon  this  matter.  Some  have 
questioned  whether  it  was  possible  that  Epistles,  hidden 
so  long,  could  have  come  out  to  the  light  at  last  and 
then  be  accepted  by  the  whole  Christian  church.  But 
De  Wette  found,  not  seventy-five  years  ago,  a  number 
of  important  letters  by  Luther,  the  great  reformer, 
that  the  world  had  never  seen  before.  Three  hun- 
dred years  had  passed  since  Luther's  death.  De  Wette 
brought  out  these  letters  and  printed  them.  They  were 
accepted  at  once  as  veritable  letters  of  the  reformer, 
although  they  had  been  hidden  for  three  hundred  years. 

John  Milton  wrote  a  treatise  on  Christian  doctrine — 
an  important  work — but  it  was  two  hundred  years  after 
John  Milton's  death  before  the  world  knew  of  its  exist- 
ence; then  only  was  it  printed  and  circulated.  Sir 
William  Hamilton  tells  us  that  there  are  now  actually 
in  existence  important  treatises  by  great  philosophers 
of  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries  that  are  lying 
hidden  away,  and  unknown,  not  only  to  the  world  but 
even  to  the  chosen  biographers  of  these  philosophers. 
Or  if  one  desires  an  illustration  from  ancient  times,  we 
have  it  in  the  case  of  the  later  works  of  Aristotle. 
These  works  were  lost  for  a  hundred  and  fifty  years 
after  his  death,  but  they  were  recognized  as  genuine 
so  soon  as  they  were  recovered  from  the  cellar  of  the 
family  of  Neleus  in  Asia.  So  I  think  it  not  without 
parallel  or  analogy  that  this  Epistle  of  the  apostle  Peter 
should  have  remained  hidden  for  many  years,  should 
have  been  then  brought  out,  and  finally,  through  many 
difficulties,  should  have  won  its  way  to  the  confidence 
of  the  Christian  church. 


35^  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Our  evidence  of  the  genuineness  and  value  of  the 
Epistle  is  in  part  external.  But  there  is  an  internal 
evidence  just  as  valuable  as  the  external.  By  internal 
evidence  I  mean  the  spiritual  value  of  the  Epistle  itself, 
the  appeal  that  it  makes  to  our  Christian  sympathies 
and  affections,  and  the  power  it  has  to  stir  and  arouse 
and  warn.  There  is  a  spirit  in  the  sacred  writings 
which  is  very  different  from  that  of  secular  literature. 
Take  the  first  chapter  of  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter 
and  read  it  through;  if  you  are  a  Christian,  you  will 
feel  that  the  Holy  Spirit  appeals  to  you  through  that 
first  chapter  as  clearly  and  indubitably  as  it  appeals  to 
you  through  any  other  chapter  of  the  New  Testament. 
There  is  a  power  here,  an  elevation,  an  illumination, 
that  are  manifestly  the  work  of  the  Spirit  of  God ;  and 
I  confess  that,  for  my  part,  I  should  greatly  feel  the 
loss  of  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  if  it  should  be  taken 
from  us.  I  do  not  think  the  question  whether  the 
Second  Epistle  of  Peter  is  genuine  or  not  is  one  upon 
which  the  whole  New  Testament  stands  or  falls.  Still 
I  think  there  was  a  divine  will  guiding  the  formation 
of  the  canon,  and  that  the  church  was  inspired  as  to 
which  portions  of  the  ancient  writings  to  accept.  I  be- 
lieve most  firmly  in  the  inspiration  and  genuineness  of 
this  Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  but  I  believe  it  not  so 
much  upon  the  external  evidence  as  I  believe  it  upon 
the  internal  evidence,  the  power  it  has  to  touch  my  heart 
and  speak  to  me  as  by  the  very  voice  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  apostle  Paul  is  the  apostle 
of  faith,  that  the  apostle  John  is  the  apostle  of  love,  and 
that  the  apostle  Peter  is  the  apostle  of  hope.  Let  us 
read  these  Epistles  in  the  light  of  that  general  remark. 


THE    EPISTLES    OF    PETER  353 

Hopefulness  is  the  most  characteristic  thing  about 
them.  You  cannot  read  these  two  Epistles  without 
feeling  something  of  their  broad  and  noble  hopefulness. 

Peter  was  a  man  of  sanguine  temperament;  a  man 
who  found  it  easy  to  believe;  and  a  man  who,  as  he 
believed  most  heartily  in  the  facts  of  Christianity,  had 
a  most  unwavering  faith  in  the  triumph  of  Christianity. 
Read  the  first  chapter  of  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter  in 
the  light  of  this  remark.  You  will  notice  that  Peter 
based  his  hopes  on  historical  facts.  He  takes  us  back 
to  the  suffering  and  the  resurrection  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ ;  then  he  takes  us  forward  to  the  future,  and  the 
certainty  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  will  come  again. 
One  day  is  with  the  Lord  as  a  thousand  years,  and  a 
thousand  years  as  one  day.  So  he  bids  us  to  be  pure, 
even  in  the  midst  of  darkness  and  persecution,  for  the 
day  of  the  Lord  draweth  nigh. 

You  remember  that  Jesus  told  Peter  to  strengthen 
his  brethren.  Obedience  to  that  command  led  lo  the 
writing  of  these  First  and  Second  Epistles.  Peter 
would  strengthen  his  brethren,  to  undergo  the  trials 
and  persecutions  with  which  they  are  beset  here  in 
this  present  life,  with  the  assurance  that  there  is  laid  up 
for  them  a  crown  of  glory,  incorruptible,  an'd  unde- 
filed,  and  that  fadeth  not  away.  There  is  a  spirit  of 
cheer,  there  is  a  spirit  of  brightness,  a  spirit  of  hope 
in  the  Epistles  of  Peter,  which  differences  them  from 
all  the  other  Epistles  of  the  New  Testament.  Peter's 
own  soul  is  full  of  hope  and  brightness  and  cheer,  and 
he  expresses  that  innermost  nature  of  his  in  both  the 
First  and  the  Second  Epistles. 


THE  EPISTLES  OF  JOHN 

The  First  Epistle  of  John  can  hardly  be  distinguished 
from  a  doctrinal  and  practical  treatise.  There  is  no 
address  to  it.  There  are  no  salutations  at  the  end  of 
it.  No  author's  name  is  connected  with  it.  One  might 
almost  think  it  was  intended  as  a  general  exposition 
of  Christian  truth;  and  yet  you  find,  here  and  there 
through  the  work,  expressions  like  this,  "  I  write  unto 
you,  little  children,"  which  seem  to  indicate  that,  in 
the  author's  mind,  it  was  an  Epistle.  Although  we  do 
not  know  the  names  of  the  churches  to  which  it  was 
first  sent,  it  is  quite  possible  that  it  was  sent  to  them 
by  some  messenger  who  assured  them  of  its  author- 
ship; so  that  the  name  John  did  not  need  to  be  ap- 
pended to  it  or  mentioned  at  its  beginning.  This,  in 
fact,  is  characteristic  of  all  John's  writing.  It  is  always 
anonymous. 

The  two  other  Epistles  of  John  do  not  mention  the 
author's  name.  He  calls  himself  "  the  elder  "  in  them. 
That  word  "  elder  "  may  not  mean  "  officer  of  the 
church,"  but  may  be  used  simply  in  the  sense  of  "  an 
elderly  person,"  as  Paul  called  himself  "  Paul,  the 
aged."  And  in  the  Gospel,  you  remember  that  there  is 
no  mention  at  all  of  John's  name.  The  "  disciple 
whom  Jesus  loved"  is  the  nearest  he  comes  to  it;  so 
that,  although  this  is  an  Epistle  of  John,  it  is  not  neces- 
sary at  all  that  we  should  connect  our  faith  in  its 
genuineness  with  any  ability  on  our  part  to  show  the 
354 


THE   EPISTLES    OF   JOHN  355 

apostle's  name  connected  with  it,  either  in  the  Epistle 
itself,  or  traditionally,  when  it  was  first  delivered. 

The  characteristics  of  the  Epistle  are  the  characteris- 
tics of  John's  other  writings.  There  are  so  many 
common  features  of  the  Gospel,  of  these  three  Epistles, 
and  of  the  Apocalypse,  the  style  of  thought  in  them 
all  is  so  peculiar,  so  unlike  that  of  any  other  of  the 
New  Testament  writings,  that  the  simplest  and  easiest 
hypothesis  is  that  all  are  the  work  of  the  apostle  John. 
Any  other  hypothesis  at  once  meets  with  so  many 
difficulties,  so  many  contradictions,  that  we  have  to 
give  it  up.  The  universal  voice  of  the  tradition  of 
the  church  ascribes  this  First  Epistle  to  John;  and  I 
think  we  need  pay  very  little  attention  to  the  skeptical 
objections  of  some  modern  critics,  for  they  evidently 
originate  in  a  carping  spirit  that  no  evidence  whatever 
would  satisfy.  The  Gospel  according  to  John  is  the 
first  of  the  two  main  writings,  and  this  Epistle  is  the 
second ;  in  other  words,  the  Gospel  was  written  before 
the  Epistle.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  the  Gospel  is 
the  earliest  of  John's  writings,  because  the  Apocalypse, 
I  believe,  is  the  earliest.  The  Apocalypse,  or  book  of 
Revelation,  was  written  thirty  years  before  the  Gospel ; 
while  the  Epistle  was  written  in  the  very  latest  period 
of  the  apostle's  life.  I  doubt  whether  we  can  put  the 
date  of  it  earlfer  than  the  year  96  or  97,  at  the  very 
close  of  the  first  century,  long  after  Paul  and  Peter 
had  suffered  martyrdom,  and  long  after  the  other 
books  of  the  New  Testament  had  been  written.  Quite 
an  interval  appears  between  the  writings  we  have 
studied  heretofore,  all  of  which  were  written  before 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  Gospel  of  John 


356  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

with  the  Epistle  which  immediately  follows  it.  The 
relation  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Gospel  is  an  interesting 
one.  In  both  of  them  the  great  subject  is  Christ,  the 
everlasting  Word  of  the  Father,  the  revelation  of  God 
to  man.  And  yet  the  aspect  in  which  Christ  is  re- 
garded is  different  in  the  Gospel  from  that  in  which 
he  is  regarded  in  the  Epistle.  The  Epistle  seems  to  be 
an  application  of  the  truth  that  is  laid  down  in  the 
Gospel.  In  the  Gospel,  John  is  a  historian;  in  the 
Epistle,  John  is  a  theologian.  Or,  if  you  choose  to 
put  it  another  way,  in  the  Gospel  John  gives  us  the 
historical  basis.  He  represents  Christ  as  coming  from 
God,  becoming  incarnate  in  humanity,  and  living  his 
life  before  us.  Thus  he  lays  the  foundation  of  the 
Gospel  in  historical  fact.  Humanity  is  incorporated 
and  absolutelly  united  with  the  Deity,  but  it  is  in  the 
person  of  Christ;  the  union  of  Christ's  followers  with 
God  is  an  incident  and  consequence,  but  not  the  main 
thing  that  is  treated. 

This  union  of  Christ's  followers  with  God  is  the 
subject  of  the  Epistle.  In  the  Epistle  we  have  the 
result  of  the  union  of  deity  with  humanity,  in  the  life 
of  the  church.  As  the  Gospel  shows  us  God  incarnated 
in  Christ,  the  starting-point,  so,  in  the  Epistle,  we  have 
humanity  brought  into  fellowship  with  God  by  union 
with  Christ.  As  the  Gospel  sets  before  us  God  in 
Christ,  so  the  Epistle  sets  before  us  the  church  in 
Christ.  In  the  Gospel  we  have  the  great  doctrinal  fact 
set  before  us ;  in  the  Epistle  we  have  the  ethical  conse- 
quence of  that  fact.  In  the  Gospel  we  have  God  in 
Christ;  in  the  Epistle  we  have  Christ  in  the  church. 
So  it  is  very  natural  that  the  Epistle  should  follow  the 


THE    EPISTLES    OF    JOHN  357 

Gospel,  follow  it  at  no  great  interval,  follow  it  as  a 
commentary  follows  a  text,  follow  it  as  the  application 
ordinarily  follows  the  doctrinal  part  of  a  sermon. 

Written  in  the  year  96  or  97,  therefore,  immediately 
after  the  Gospel,  we  find  in  it  no  reference  to  the  con- 
troversies which  had  agitated  the  church  in  the  days  of 
Paul.  They  all  seem  to  have  been  settled — that  great 
Judaizing  controversy,  for  example;  that  question  be- 
tween law  and  gospel;  that  dividing  line  between 
merely  outward  Israel  and  the  true  church  of  God — 
nothing  of  this  appears  in  either  the  Gospel  or  the 
Epistle  of  John.  Paul  has  long  since  passed  away. 
Thirty  years  have  passed  since  his  martyrdom,  and 
John  has  been  called  to  supervise  the  churches  over 
which  Paul  was  once  the  bishop  or  supervisor.  Asia 
Minor  has  been  for  many  years  the  scene  of  the  apos- 
tle's labors,  and  a  great  many  of  the  early  difficulties  of 
the  situation  have  ceased  to  exist.  Jerusalem  has  been 
destroyed,  so  long  destroyed  that  there  is  not  the  least 
mention  of  Jerusalem  in  this  Epistle  of  John. 

Not  only  has  Jerusalem  been  destroyed,  but  the  per- 
secutions that  circled  about  that  time  have  all  passed 
by.  There  is  not  the  least  hint  in  the  First  Epistle  of 
John  that  there  was  any  such  thing  as  persecution. 
The  difficulties  which  John  has  to  meet,  the  errors 
which  he  has  to  controvert,  are  not  those  which  arise 
from  external  opposition  of  enemies  to  the  faith.  The 
heathen  are  not  mentioned  at  all  in  this  First  Epistle 
of  John. 

The  church  seems  not  only  to  have  been  launched, 
but  to  have  proceeded  for  a  long  time  on  a  prosperous 
voyage.    No  external  rocks  or  quicksands  occasion  the 


358  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

warnings  of  the  apostle;  the  difficulties  are  all  inter- 
nal; such  difficulties  as  would  arise  in  a  church  that 
had  been  prosperous,  and  which,  by  virtue  of  its  pros- 
perity, was  in  danger  of  forgetting  its  early  love.  And 
so  the  apostle  is  enabled  to  confine  himself  to  those 
great  internal  truths  and  needs  which  are  the  same  for 
all  time. 

It  is  remarkable  how  completely  John  lifts  himself 
up  above  everything  merely  temporal,  above  everything 
that  has  reference  to  the  present,  and  how  he  strikes 
at  tendencies  that  are  the  same  from  age  to  age ;  if  you 
find  in  his  Epistles  any  reference  to  errors  peculiar  to 
his  time,  they  are  errors  of  a  totally  different  sort  from 
those  with  which  Paul  had  to  deal. 

There  is  one  great  doctrinal  tendency,  one  great 
tendency  of  error,  which  John,  in  this  Epistle,  com- 
bats. It  has  to  do  with  the  person  of  Christ.  At  the 
close  of  the  first  century  there  began  to  manifest  itself 
in  the  Christian  church  a  disposition  to  degrade  Christ, 
on  the  one  hand,  to  the  mere  level  of  man,  and  to  hold 
him  to  be  a  mere  exalted  human  being;  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  a  disposition  to  regard  him  as  so  completely 
and  entirely  God  that  he  could  not  suffer  here  in  the 
flesh.  This  latter  tendency  is  represented  in  the  per- 
son of  Cerinthus.  The  Christian  Fathers  tell  us  that 
Cerinthus  lived  in  the  days  of  the  apostle  John,  and 
was  in  Ephesus  at  the  close  of  the  first  century. 

What  was  the  doctrine  of  this  Cerinthus?  It  was 
this,  that  Deity  and  humanity  were  not  from  the  first 
indissolubly  united  in  Christ;  the  union  was  a  tem- 
porary one,  and  a  separable  one.  In  other  words,  Cerin- 
thus did  not  believe  in  a  miraculous  conception;  did 


THE   EPISTLES   OF   JOHN  359 

not  believe  in  a  genuine  incarnation  of  God  in  hu- 
manity; did  not  believe  that  he  who  was  born  of  the 
Virgin  was  the  Son  of  God  as  well  as  the  Son  of  man, 
divine  as  well  as  human.  No,  Cerinthus  held  that 
Jesus  was  born  just  as  other  men  are  born;  that  he 
was  a  holy  man ;  that  he  was  the  choice  of  God ;  that, 
at  his  baptism,  there  descended  upon  him  from  on  high, 
in  the  form  of  a  dove,  a  divinity  that  took  possession 
of  him,  and  that  constituted  a  union  with  him  that 
lasted  through  his  earthly  life  until  the  time  of  his 
crucifixion;  and  that  then  he  was  forsaken  by  the 
Father;  the  death  that  occurred  was  not  the  death  of 
Deity  plus  humanity,  but  was  the  death  simply  of  a 
human  being ;  all  the  miraculous  works  that  Christ  had 
previously  done  were  done  by  virtue  of  the  Deity  that 
dwelt  in  him  and  by  no  power  of  his  own;  Deity  did 
not  unite  itself  to  him  in  such  a  way  that  his  humanity 
could  not  be  separated  from  it ;  and  so,  Christ  went  up 
on  high,  the  human  was  left  here  below,  and  only  the 
Deity  went  back  to  the  throne.  How  plain  it  is  that 
such  an  incarnation  does  not  answer  either  to  the 
Scripture  representation,  or  to  the  needs  of  our  human 
hearts !  It  is  very  like  the  incarnation  that  we  find  in 
Buddhism,  where  Buddha  comes  down  in  a  cycle  of 
ages,  joins  himself  temporarily  to  a  human  being,  in- 
habits this  humanity  for  a  little  time,  and  then,  after 
he  has  done  this  temporary  work,  shuffles  off  the 
humanity  like  a  worn-out  garment,  and  returns  alone 
to  his  heaven. 

How  different  from  the  conception  of  the  incarna- 
tion in  Scripture!  In  Scripture  God  unites  himself 
from  the  very  birth  of  Christ,  and  forevermore.     We 


360  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

call  our  Lord  the  God-man.  From  the  very  beginning 
he  is  the  Son  of  God.  The  union  in  him  of  humanity 
and  deity  is  indissoluble.  When  Christ  ascends  up  on 
high  he  takes  our  humanity  with  him;  so  that  in 
heaven  to-day  he  has  the  same  hands  and  feet  that 
were  nailed  to  the  bitter  cross  for  us.  That  is  the  in- 
carnation, that  is  the  union  of  humanity  and  deity  for 
which  our  human  hearts  long.  We  want  a  union  of 
humanity  with  God  that  is  permanent;  and  only  that 
complete  union  of  humanity  with  God  satisfies  our 
needs  or  furnishes  the  basis  of  our  fellowship  with 
God.  Cerinthus  denies  this;  Cerinthus  declares  that 
the  union  of  deity  with  humanity  began  only  at  Christ's 
baptism  and  continued  only  until  the  time  of  his  death ; 
Christ  now  is  not  our  elder  brother  in  the  sense  that 
he  is  man  as  well  as  God;  he  cannot  sympathize  with 
us  now,  because  he  has  not  the  same  nature  that  he  had 
when  he  was  here  upon  earth.  This  doctrine  is  so 
repugnant  to  Christian  feeling,  it  is  so  antagonistic  to 
Scripture  that  John  regards  it  as  the  very  central 
heresy  of  all ;  and  he  makes  belief  in  the  real  union  of 
Deity  and  humanity  in  Christ,  belief  in  the  permanent 
union  of  the  Son  of  God  with  human  nature,  a  test  of 
all  Christian  fellowship.  There  is  a  tradition  with 
regard  to  the  apostle  John  that  when,  on  a  certain  day, 
he  found  himself  in  the  public  bath  with  Cerinthus,  or 
heard,  as  he  was  in  the  bath,  that  this  heretic  Cerinthus 
was  there  too,  he  seized  his  single  garment  and  rushed 
out  from  the  bath  in  terror,  declaring  to  those  about 
him  that  he  dare  not  stay  under  that  roof  lest  the  roof 
should  fall  upon  them  as  a  sign  of  God's  judgment 
upon  such  a  heretic.     There  was  a  revelation  of  the 


THE    EPISTLES    OF    JOHN  361 

burning  love  and  burning  hate  that  characterized  the 
apostle  John. 

We  sometimes  think  of  him  as  effeminate.  We  must 
remember  that  he  was  a  Boanerges,  a  "  Son  of  Thun- 
der." That  same  deep  heart  of  love  was  inseparable 
from  a  heart  of  hatred  for  everything  that  was  untrue 
and  impure.  The  love  of  goodness  that  is  not  ac- 
companied by  a  hatred  of  evil  is  love  of  a  very  sus- 
picious sort. 

The  apostle  John  has  given  us,  in  this  First  Epis- 
tle, a  commentary,  application,  and  continuation  of  the 
Gospel.  He  has  told  us,  in  this  First  Epistle,  what 
effect  this  fellowship  with  God  produces  in  the  heart 
and  life  of  the  believer. 

You  remember  the  striking  similarity  between  the 
beginning  of  the  Gospel  and  the  beginning  of  the  Epis- 
tle. In  the  Gospel  we  have :  "  In  the  beginning  was 
the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word 
was  God  " ;  and  then,  in  the  fourteenth  verse,  we  have : 
"  And  the  Word  became  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us 
(and  we  behold  his  glory,  glory  as  of  the  only  begotten 
from  the  Father)  full  of  grace  and  truth."  In  the 
Epistle  we  find  the  apostle  stirred  by  the  completed 
incarnation,  and  speaking  of  what  lie  himself,  as  an 
eye-witness,  has  beheld :  "  That  which  our  eyes  have 
seen,  which  our  hands  have  handled,  of  the  Word  of 
life,  that  declare  we  unto  you  " ;  and  the  object  of  his 
declaration  is  that  those  who  believe  in  Christ  may 
have  their  joy  fulfilled. 

As,  in  the  Gospel,  he  begins  with  eternity  past, 
shows  how  the  Word  of  God  became  incarnate,  and 
then  describes  the  life  of  God  among  men,  so,  in  the 


362  THE    BOOKS   OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Epistle,  he  begins  with  the  complete  incarnation,  tells 
us  how  he  himself,  among  others,  had  been  an  eye- 
witness of  the  facts  of  the  Saviour's  life,  and  then 
proceeds  to  show  what  effect  this  great  doctrine  ought 
to  have  upon  the  life  of  the  believer  and  of  the  church. 

After  this  beginning  of  the  First  Epistle  there  are 
two  great  divisions  of  the  treatment,  the  first  of  them 
extending  to  the  twelfth  verse  of  the  second  chapter, 
and  the  second  extending  from  that  point  to  the  end. 

It  is  difficult  to  follow  the  course  of  thought  of  the 
Epistle,  and  to  construct  an  analysis  of  it.  The  apostle, 
while  having  the  general  plan  which  he  is  to  follow, 
yet  allows  himself  from  time  to  time  to  diverge  from 
the  path  that  he  has  marked  out,  in  order  to  make  par- 
ticular applications  of  the  truth  and  to  add  suggestions 
that  occur  to  his  mind.  Exactly  where  the  lines  of 
division  are  to  be  drawn  it  is  sometimes  difficult  to  say. 
The  first  verse  seems  to  suggest  another  verse,  and  the 
second  verse  to  suggest  the  third;  yet,  after  all,  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  there  is  a  general  progress  of 
thought,  and  that  two  great  ideas  are  presented  in  it. 
If  we  can  fasten  in  our  minds  these  two  ideas  of  the 
Epistle,  it  will  be  of  service  to  us. 

The  first  is :  God  is  light,  walk  in  the  light ;  and  the 
second  is:  God  is  love,  walk  in  love.  The  first  part 
of  the  Epistle  has  to  do  with  God  as  light ;  that  is,  as 
moral  light,  as  having  in  him  no  darkness  at  all  of 
sin  or  impurity,  and  therefore  as  excluding  sin  on  the 
part  of  the  Christian,  so  that  he  who  lives  in  fellow- 
ship with  God  is  bound  to  walk  in  the  light,  as  God 
is  light.  And  if  the  Christian  has  come  into  fellow- 
ship with  God,  that  light  will  reveal  the  Christian's 


THE    EPISTLES    OF    JOHN  363 

remaining  unholiness,  and  will  show  that  the  Chris- 
tian is  necessarily  one  who  recognizes  sin  and  con- 
fesses sin.  "  If  we  confess  our  sins,  he  is  faithful  and 
just  to  forgive  our  sins  and  cleanse  us  from  all  un- 
righteousness. If  any  man  says  he  has  no  sin,  he  is  a 
liar,  the  truth  is  not  in  him  " ;  God's  moral  light  re- 
veals the  remaining  impurity  of  those  who  are  joined 
to  him;  reveals  it  to  themselves;  leads  them,  by  his 
Spirit,  to  confess  that  remaining  impurity;  leads  them 
to  seek  forgiveness  for  it  and  deliverance  from  it.  That 
is  the  first  great  division  of  the  Epistle.  Fellowship 
with  God,  brought  about  by  union  with  Jesus  Christ, 
is  the  one  great  subject  of  the  Epistle.  And  the  appli- 
cation is  obvious.  As  God  is  light,  let  us  walk  in  the 
light,  confess  our  sin,  put  away  our  sin,  seek  the  de- 
liverance from  sin  which  the  Spirit  of  God  provides  in 
Christ. 

The  second  part  of  the  Epistle  very  naturally  fol- 
lows. God  is  not  only  moral  light,  holiness,  purity, 
but  he  is  also  love;  and  fellowship  with  God  in  Jesus 
Christ  will,  therefore,  necessarily  lead  us  first  to  love 
God,  and  then,  as  the  result  of  that  love,  to  love  our 
brethren  also;  so  that  the  evidence  that  we  have  this 
love  to  God  will  be  seen  in  our  love  for  the  brethren, 
and  wherever  love  for  the  brethren  prevails,  it  will 
have  its  source  in  God  himself,  who  is  love.  So  we 
are  brought  to  a  recognition  of  the  fact  that  there 
should  be  two  sorts  of  self-sacrifice  and  service  on  the 
part  of  Christians,  one  toward  one  another,  and  the 
other  toward  their  Lord.  Beginning  with  the  fact  of 
God's  great  love  to  us,  John  saw  the  necessity  on  our 
part    of    corresponding    love    toward    one    another. 


364  THE   BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

''  Herein  is  love,"  or,  in  the  original,  "  herein  is  the 
Love,"  as  if  this  love  of  God  in  Christ  v^ere  the  one 
great  example  of  love;  as  if  this  were  the  love  which 
included  all  other  love;  the  love  into  fellowship  with 
which  we  were  to  enter.  In  other  words,  the  love  of 
God  toward  the  lost  world  in  Christ  is  love  of  which 
we  are  not  only  the  objects,  but  also  the  partakers. 
Did  he  not  lay  down  his  life  for  us?  If  he  laid  down 
his  life  for  us,  then  we  also  ought  to  lay  down  our 
lives  for  the  brethren.  That  is  a  very  simple  sort  of 
argument.  It  is  not  dialectic.  It  is  not  conceived  or 
expressed  in  the  logical  way  of  the  apostle  Paul.  John 
speaks  in  a  childlike  way;  he  speaks  from  insight;  he 
puts  his  thought  in  the  simplest  possible  form;  yet  his 
utterance  is  wonderfully  profound  and  wonderfully 
true.  This  is  the  very  truth  we  need  to  make  us  active 
and  useful  Christians. 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  great  subject  of  the  Epis- 
tle, fellowship  with  God  in  union  with  Christ.  God  is 
light:  therefore  enter  into  this  fellowship  of  moral 
light,  confess  and  put  away  sin.  God  is  love:  enter 
into  this  fellowship  of  love ;  not  only  receive  this  love 
from  God,  but  manifest  this  love  to  your  brethren; 
for,  when  a  man  says  he  loves  God  and  loves  not  his 
brother,  he  is  a  liar,  like  that  man  who  says  that  he  has 
no  sin  which  he  needs  to  confess  and  put  away. 

We  have  seen  that  John's  first  aim  in  this  Epistle 
is  to  oppose  a  great  doctrinal  error  with  regard  to  the 
person  of  Christ,  that  doctrinal  error  which  would 
separate  between  the  humanity  and  Deity  of  Christ, 
and  conceive  of  them  as  dislocated  and  only  tempo- 
rarily united  during  the  Saviour's  life;  that  great  error 


THE    EPISTLES    OF    JOHN  365 

that  denies  that  Jesus  Christ  is  from  the  beginning  and 
forever  the  divine-human  Redeemer,  Son  of  God  and 
Son  of  man.  John's  second  great  aim  is  to  combat 
the  great  practical  error  that  a  man,  when  he  is  once 
redeemed,  does  not  need  any  further  redemption. 
These  prosperous  Christians  were  in  danger  of  for- 
getting that  there  was  still  remaining  something  to  be 
done,  and  that  they  must  look  to  God  to  sanctify  them 
as  well  as  justify  them.  It  is  not  enough  to  be  for- 
given. Those  who  say,  "  God  has  forgiven  me ;  it  is 
all  right  with  me;  I  have  nothing  now  to  do,"  must 
take  care  to  live  a  life  of  good  works,  a  life  of  holiness, 
a  life  of  love,  or  they  will  prove  that  they  are  strangers 
to  the  grace  of  God.  The  practical  instruction  of  the 
Epistle,  then,  aims  to  convince  Christians  that  they 
must  continually  seek  sanctification,  that  they  must  be 
faithful  to  Christ  in  purity  of  life  and  in  love  toward 
the  brethren.  A  little  remark  of  Luther's  is  exceed- 
ingly apt,  and  is  worth  remembering.  He  says,  **  He 
that  is  a  Christian  is  no  Christian  " ;  that  is,  he  who 
thinks  that  his  Christian  life  is  a  complete  thing,  that 
he  needs  nothing  more,  that  there  is  nothing  to  strive 
for,  nothing  further  to  do,  nothing  further  to  attain, 
why,  he  is  not  a  Christian  at  all.  How  much  there  is 
in  that!  He  who  is  a  Christian,  trusts  Christian  ex- 
periences in  the  past,  without  trying  continually  to  be 
a  better  Christian  and  to  live  more  near  to  God,  why, 
that  man  shows  that  the  root  of  the  matter  is  not  in 
him.  He  is  not  a  Christian,  for  a  Christian  is  one  who 
recognizes  his  remaining  depravity,  hates  it,  longs  to 
be  rid  of  it,  and  strives  continually  to  be  more  and 
more  like  Christ  his  Lord. 


2,66  THE   BOOKS   OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

There  is  a  saying  of  Jesus  himself,  of  which  I  think 
this  is  only  an  exposition  in  another  form  of  words. 
Jesus  bids  his  disciples  love  one  another  and  sacrifice 
themselves  for  one  another ;  and  he  says,  "  So  shall  ye 
become  my  disciples."  Become?  Why,  they  were  his 
disciples.  Yes,  they  were  his  disciples,  but  they  could 
become  more  and  more  his  disciples.  "  So  shall  ye 
become  my  disciples."  It  is  not  enough  that  we  are 
Christians  now;  there  is  a  sense  in  which  we  are  to 
become  more  and  more  thoroughly  Christians  in  our 
daily  life.  This  is  exactly  what  the  apostle  John  seeks. 
He  writes  this  Epistle  in  order  that  those  whom  he 
recognizes  as  already  saved  by  the  grace  of  God  may 
be  more  and  more  saved.  They  may  be  saved  more 
and  more  from  the  evil  that  is  within  and  without,  and 
they  may  become  more  and  more  like  Christ  in  heart 
and  life. 

There  are  two  specific  objects  which  the  apostle 
mentions  in  addition  to  this  one.  He  says  he  writes 
these  things  to  them  that  their  joy  may  be  fulfilled — 
that  is  one  thing  he  aims  at ;  and  that  they  may  know 
that  they  have  eternal  life — that  is  the  other  aim. 
There  is  a  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  they  belong  to 
Christ  and  that  they  are  his,  on  the  one  hand;  and 
there  is  a  joy  resulting,  on  the  other.  These  two  have 
an  intimate  connection  with  each  other.  John  writes 
in  order  that  our  faith  may  be  turned  into  assurance ; 
in  order  that  our  trust  in  Christ  may  become  a  real 
conviction.  He  would  have  us  know  that  Christ  is 
ours,  and  that  we  are  his ;  and  so  would  put  us  in  pos- 
session of  our  proper  Christian  joy.  The  Lord  is  not 
content  that  we  should  be  simply  Christians ;  he  wants 


THE   EPISTLES   OE   JOHN  367 

US  to  know  that  we  are  Christians  and  to  have  the  joy 
of  knowing  it;  so  that  the  joy  of  the  Lord  may  be  our 
strength. 

It  is  not  possible  for  a  Christian  who  is  Hving  in 
Doubting  Castle,  and  who  is  constantly  troubled  with 
fears  lest  he  shall  be  a  castaway,  to  do  so  much  for 
God  or  to  exert  so  large  or  so  blessed  an  influence 
upon  those  around  him  as  he  could  exert  if  he  had  the 
assurance  that  he  was  a  child  of  God  and  an  inheritor 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  The  joy  of  the  Lord  is  a 
contagious  joy;  when  it  shines  out  from  the  features  it 
gives  witness  to  the  world  of  a  higher  life  in  Christ;  it 
leads  others  to  seek  and  to  find  the  Christ  who  imparts 
it.  John  writes  with  these  two  ends  in  view :  First, 
that  we  may  know  we  are  Christians;  and  secondly, 
that  we  may  have  the  joy  that  belongs  to  Christians. 
This  Epistle,  written  in  his  age,  and  just  before  his 
death,  is  his  legacy  to  the  Christian  church. 

There  is  something  very  striking  in  the  point  to 
which  we  have  arrived  in  our  study  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. This  is  the  last  of  the  New  Testament  docu- 
ments, the  last  word  of  inspiration,  and  how  calm, 
how  authoritative,  how  apostolic  it  is ! 

A  single  word  with  regard  to  the  Second  and  Third 
Epistles.  The  second  is  apparently  written  to  a  lady, 
an  elect  lady,  who  has  a  Christian  household  which  is 
threatened  by  the  invasion  of  false  teachers,  and  she 
is  warned  against  them.  It  is  a  beautiful  illustration 
of  family  religion  in  the  apostolic  age.  The  Third 
Epistle  is  written  to  Gains;  and  in  that  Epistle  Gaius 
is  warned  not  to  yield  to  the  false  instructions  of  a 
certain  Diotrephes,  who  seems  to  be  a  pastor  or  elder 


^6S  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

of  the  church  who  has  refused  to  obey  the  commands  of 
the  apostle  and  to  entertain  certain  evangehsts  whom 
he  had  sent  to  minister  in  that'  neighborhood.  This 
Third  Epistle  furnishes  evidence  of  church  organiza- 
tion in  the  apostolic  age.  In  the  First  Epistle  we  have 
no  mention  of  church  organization,  and  no  mention  of 
religion  in  the  family.  The  Second  and  Third  Epistles 
supplement  the  First,  and  show  us  that  both  existed, 
although  in  the  First  Epistle  we  have  no  allusion  to 
them.  So  the  three  together  constitute  a  complete 
whole,  and  round  out  the  whole  work  of  apostolic  in- 
struction which  John  the  apostle  was  sent  to  perform. 
Like  the  Lord  who  sent  him,  he  could  say  that  he  had 
finished  the  work  which  God  gave  him  to  do. 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JUDE 

JuDE  or  Judas,  as  our  new  version  makes  his  name, 
declares  himself  to  be  the  brother  of  James;  and  by 
that  very  fact  he  seems  to  intimate  that  he  has  no  in- 
dependent standing  as  an  apostle.  If  Jude  had  been 
an  apostle,  it  would  seem  as  if  he  would  have  so  an- 
nounced himself  in  the  address  of  his  Epistle,  and  have 
gained  whatever  of  authority  such  an  announcement 
might  give.  On  the  other  hand,  he  seems  to  distin- 
guish himself  from  the  apostles  when  he  urges  those 
to  whom  he  writes  to  remember  the  words  that  were 
spoken  to  them  by  the  apostles  of  our  Lord,  while 
Peter  says :  ''  Remember  the  words  that  were  spoken 
unto  you  by  us,  the  apostles  of  the  Lord."  Jude  does 
not  class  himself  among  the  apostles.  He  calls  himself 
simply  Jude,  the  brother  of  James. 

This  James  cannot  be  James  the  greater.  John,  so 
far  as  we  know,  is  his  only  brother.  This  James  must 
have  been  the  James  who  wrote  the  Epistle;  and  this 
James  was  not  an  apostle  at  all,  but  was  a  brother  of 
our  Lord,  a  later  son  of  the  Virgin,  half-brother,  so  to 
speak,  of  Jesus,  one  of  those  who  up  to  the  time  of 
the  Saviour's  resurrection  had  remained  unbelieving. 
For  that  reason  he  could  not  be  chosen  as  an  apostle, 
for  an  apostle  needed  to  be  one  who  had  been  an  eye- 
witness of  the  wonderful  works  of  Jesus  from  the  be- 
ginning; and  the  brethren  of  Jesus,  who  did  not  con- 
stantly accompany  him  during  his  earthly  life,  but 

Y  369 


370  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

rather  sundered  themselves  from  him,  were  not  wit- 
nesses of  all  the  events  of  that  life,  and  therefore 
were  not  so  fit  persons  to  be  entrusted  with  the  apos- 
tolate. 

Jude,  like  James,  then,  was  one  of  those  half- 
brothers  of  Jesus  who,  though  unbelieving  during  most 
of  our  Saviour's  life  here  upon  the  earth,  were  con- 
verted after  the  resurrection.  Jesus  appeared  to  James 
in  the  fulness  of  a  brother's  love,  convinced  him  of  his 
error,  and  brought  him  to  repentance  and  faith.  We 
do  not  know  that  there  was  any  special  appearance  of 
the  risen  Lord  to  Jude.  He  may  have  been  one  of 
those  five  hundred  brethren  to  whom  our  Lord  revealed 
himself  all  "  at  once."  At  any  rate,  he  became  a  con- 
vert after  Jesus'  resurrection;  and  we  find  him  with 
the  other  brethren  of  our  Lord,  and  with  the  women, 
and  with  the  apostles,  in  that  upper  chamber,  where 
they  prayed  for  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon 
the  day  of  Pentecost. 

We  know  very  little  with  regard  to  the  life  of  Jude. 
It  is  told  us  that  two  of  his  grandsons  were  appre- 
hended by  Domitian;  and  being  brought  before  him, 
were  accused  of  being  related  to  Jesus,  the  Christ; 
but  when  Domitian,  the  emperor,  saw  that  they  were 
plain  men,  and,  on  questioning  them,  found  that  the 
kingdom  which  they  intended  to  set  up  was  not  a  tem- 
poral but  purely  a  spiritual  kingdom,  it  is  said  that  he 
dismissed  them,  and  stayed  the  persecution  that  had 
begun. 

What  became  of  Jude  himself  we  hardly  know. 
Tradition  relates  that  he  preached  to  the  Jews  in 
Palestine  and  in  Egypt;  and  if  we  are  asked  to  say  to 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   JUDE  37 1 

what  particular  portion  of  the  Christian  church  this 
letter  of  Jude  was  addressed,  we  may  say  that  it  was 
probably  addressed  to  Jewish  Christians  in  Palestine 
and  in  Egypt,  for  in  those  countries  we  find  the  first 
recognition  of  the  Epistle.  It  would  almost  seem  as  if 
Peter  and  Jude  had  consented  together  with  regard 
to  the  portions  of  the  Christian  church  which  they 
would  address — Peter  writing  to  the  Jewish  Christians 
of  the  Dispersion  in  Asia  Minor,  while  Jude  wrote  to 
the  Jewish  Christians  in  Palestine  and  Egypt.  The 
date  of  the  Epistle  must  have  been  in  the  very  latest 
period  of  the  Apostolic  age — that  is,  just  before  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem — for  Jude  speaks  as  if  the  apos- 
tolic preaching  were  a  thing  of  the  past ;  "  Remember 
the  words  that  were  spoken  to  you  by  the  apostles,"  he 
says,  as  if  some  of  the  apostles  had  already  fallen 
asleep,  and  their  ministry  had  come  to  its  close. 

And  yet,  while  the  Epistle  of  Jude  must  have  been 
written  very  late,  it  cannot  have  been  written  after  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  because  there  are  certain  evi- 
dences that  Peter  had  read  this  Epistle  and  had  re- 
ceived some  special  influence  from  it.  It  therefore 
must  have  been  written  some  time  before  Peter's  death  ; 
and,  moreover,  there  is  no  reference  whatever  in  it 
to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  as  there  most  certainly 
would  have  been  if  Jerusalem  had  been  destroyed. 

The  Epistle  reminds  its  readers  of  the  various  warn- 
ings and  judgments  of  God ;  if  Jerusalem  had  recently 
fallen,  Jude  would  certainly  have  mentioned  it  as  the 
most  striking  evidence  that  God's  justice,  although  long 
delayed,  will  certainly  be  executed.  We  must,  there- 
fore, put  the  date  of  the  Epistle  somewhere  about  the 


2iy2  THE    BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

years  64  to  66.  Peter  suffered  martyrdom  probably  in 
68.  We  must  put  the  date  of  the  Epistle  a  few  years 
before  that.  And  it  is  before  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem, which  took  place  in  the  year  70.  Yet  it  is  at 
the  very  close  of  the  Apostolic  age,  after  many  of  the 
apostles  had  ceased  to  labor,  so  that  this  date  64  to  66 
is  as  probable  a  date  as  any  that  can  be  assigned. 

There  is  a  striking  resemblance  between  the  Epistle 
of  Jude  and  the  second  chapter  of  the  Second  Epistle 
of  Peter.  Students  of  the  New  Testament  have  marked 
this  resemblance,  and  have  been  puzzled  by  it.  The 
writers  of  these  two  Epistles  must  have  been  in  com- 
munication with  each  other ;  one  of  these  two  had  read 
the  work  of  the  other,  had  been  strongly  influenced  by 
it,  and  had  actually  taken  from  it  some  of  its  thoughts 
and  expressions. 

The  question  as  to  priority  is  interesting.  Who  was 
the  original,  and  who  was  the  transcriber?  It  appears 
that  Jude  was  the  original ;  for  there  is  a  certain  terse- 
ness, vigor,  and  coherence  about  the  Epistle  of  Jude 
which  marks  it  as  an  original.  No  one  can  read  the 
Epistle  of  Jude  without  feeling  that  it  is  a  unit,  that  it 
is  the  work  of  one  man. 

On  the  other  hand,  when  you  read  the  Second  Epistle 
of  Peter,  you  find  that  the  second  chapter  of  Peter  is 
not  in  Peter's  ordinary  style ;  that  there  are  expressions 
which  are  diverse  from  Peter's  manner ;  and,  when  you 
compare  those  divergent  expressions  with  the  Epistle 
of  Jude,  you  find  that,  in  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  some  of 
them  are  there,  almost  word  for  word.  I  do  not  mean 
to  say  that  the  whole  Epistle  of  Jude  has  been  tran- 
scribed by  Peter;  but  the  general  course  of  Jude's 


THE    EPISTLE    OF    JUDE  373 

thought  is  adopted  by  Peter,  and  many  of  the  forms 
of  expression  are  adopted  also. 

There  is  another  reason  why  we  should  be  led  to 
think  that  Peter  was  the  transcriber  and  not  Jude,  viz. : 
That  the  Epistle  of  Peter  is  the  longer,  and  the  Epistle 
of  Jude  is  the  briefer.  It  is  the  big  fish  that  eat  up 
the  little  fish,  and  not  vice  versa.  It  was  easier  for 
Peter  to  take  Jude  and  to  incorporate  what  Jude  had 
written  than  it  was  for  Jude  to  take  a  piece  out  of 
Peter,  and  make  his  whole  Epistle  out  of  that. 

You  find,  moreover,  that  the  striking  expressions  of 
Jude  are  often  curtailed.  Peter  takes  them  in  con- 
densed form.  Peter  puts  them  in  his  own  way.  When 
he  came  to  things  in  Jude  which  were  difficult  to  un- 
derstand, expressions  that  were  very  uncommon,  he 
simply  omitted  them,  and  contented  himself  with  taking 
the  substance  of  Jude's  thought.  I  explain  this  curious 
phenomenon,  just  as  I  explain  the  taking  from  the 
Old  Testament  by  the  New  Testament  writers  of  mani- 
fold quotations,  without  any  allusion  whatever  to  the 
place  from  which  they  were  taken.  You  do  not  blame 
Paul  as  he  writes  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and,  in  the 
second  chapter,  quotes  verse  after  verse  from  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures,  without  any  allusion  to  the 
parts  of  the  Old  Testament  Scripture  from  which  they 
are  taken.  The  inspiring  Spirit  who  directed  the  mind 
of  Paul  had  a  perfect  right  to  lead  Paul's  mind  to  the 
acceptance  and  reiteration  of  truth  that,  under  the  in- 
fluence of  that  same  Spirit,  had  been  spoken  before. 

Here  were  Jude  and  Peter  writing  to  Jewish  Chris- 
tians, and  yet  writing  to  Jewish  Christians  in  different 
regions — Peter  writing  to  Jewish  Christians  in  Asia 


374  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Minor,  Jude  writing  to  Jewish  Christians  in  Palestine 
and  Egypt.  It  is  possible  that  there  was  not  only  com- 
munication, but  also  consultation,  between  them.  Jude 
may  even  have  had  Peter  for  an  amanuensis,  and  Peter 
may  have  taken  from  Jude's  dictation  what  suited  his 
purpose,  may  have  incorporated  it  in  his  own  Epistle, 
and  then  may  have  sent  it  out  to  Jewish  Christians  in 
another  part  of  the  earth.  In  the  Old  Testament  we 
have  a  similar  appropriation  in  Micah  of  a  prophecy 
previously  uttered  by  Isaiah.  I  see  no  reason  why 
such  a  theory  as  this  should  not  be  perfectly  consist- 
ent with  our  idea  of  inspiration.  The  real  author  of 
the  Scripture  is  not  Jude,  nor  Peter,  but  the  Spirit  of 
God;  and  the  Spirit  of  God  has  a  right  to  repeat  his 
utterances  by  whomsoever  he  will. 

The  design  of  the  Epistle  of  Jude  is  to  oppose  what 
we  may  call  antlnomian  Gnosticism.  By  Gnosticism  I 
mean  the  pretense  that  religion  consists  mainly  in 
speculative  belief,  and  the  corresponding  tendency  to 
make  mere  outward  profession  the  essential  thing. 
Gnosticism  claims,  moreover,  that  those  who  have  pro- 
fessed Christianity  and  are  outwardly  connected  with 
the  church  are  In  no  danger  of  sin  and  may  do  what 
they  will.  There  was  the  real  spirit  of  licentiousness 
and  the  tendency  to  all  manner  of  sensuality,  while  at 
the  same  time  there  was  an  utter  disregard  of  the  ap- 
pointed authorities  of  the  Christian  church.  The  de- 
sign of  the  Epistle  Is  to  oppose  these  tendencies,  which 
we  find  treated  in  other  Epistles  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  which  seem  to  have  been  particularly  rife  in  the 
churches  to  which  Peter  and  Jude  wrote. 

Jude  treats  his  subject  in  a  very  orderly  way.    After 


THE    EPISTLE    OF    JUDE  3^5 

the  introduction,  in  which  he  speaks  of  Christians  as 
the  pecuHar  possession  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  sanc- 
tified by  God,  the  Father,  and  kept  for  our  Lord  up 
to  the  time  of  his  coming,  he  urges  them  to  contend 
earnestly  for  the  faith  that  was  once  for  all  delivered 
to  the  saints.  Notice  the  peculiar  form  of  statement. 
This  faith  is  something  that  can  be  separated  from  all 
the  vagaries  and  speculations  of  men.  It  is  a  well- 
known  and  an  easily  recognized  doctrine  of  Christ.  It 
is  given  once  for  all;  it  is  not  to  be  altered,  or  added 
to,  or  superseded;  it  is  given  to  all  the  saints  as  their 
common  property  and  possession.  It  is  not  an  esoteric 
doctrine,  as  the  false  teachers  claimed.  These  false 
teachers  prided  themselves  upon  knowledge  that  is  the 
possession  of  the  few.  They  fancied  that  they  alone  had 
the  key  to  the  truth,  and  they  excluded  from  the  inner 
circle  of  intimacy  with  God  the  great  mass  of  the 
Christian  membership.  They  were  self-sufficient  and 
arrogant. 

The  Epistle  sets  over  against  all  this  narrow  pre- 
tense of  a  peculiar  doctrine  the  one  faith  delivered 
once  for  all  to  all  the  saints,  as  the  common  property 
and  possession  of  all  who  love  our  Lord  and  Saviour, 
Jesus  Christ.  The  church  is  to  contend  constantly  for 
this  faith  against  the  false  teachers  who  set  up  some- 
thing beyond  the  common  truth  that  belongs  to  the 
Christian  church. 

In  the  second  part  of  his  Epistle  Jude  speaks  of 
the  punishment  that  comes  to  those  who  resist  the  truth 
and  are  unfaithful  to  the  w^ord  of  God.  Three  sorts  of 
sin  are  spoken  of  as  punishable  and  three  illustrations 
are  given  of  their  punishment.     There  is,  first,  the  sin 


376  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

of  unbelief.  God  brought  Israel  out  of  Egypt,  and  yet, 
when  Israel  disbelieved,  God  destroyed  them  in  the 
wilderness.  The  second  is  the  sin  of  pride.  The  angels 
that  kept  not  their  first  estate  God  punished  by  banish- 
ing them  from  heaven  and  by  keeping  them  in  everlast- 
ing chains  under  darkness  unto  the  judgment  of  the 
great  day.  The  last  of  all  is  the  sin  of  sensuality,  and 
of  this  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  are  the  example. 

Here  are  three  distinct  and  terrible  instances  of  pun- 
ishment brought  upon  persistent  iniquity.  And  now 
there  are  three  other  forms  of  sin  that  are  mentioned 
one  after  another.  First,  the  way  of  Cain :  that  is,  the 
way  of  self-righteousness,  unwillingness  to  accept  of 
God's  appointed  sacrifice;  then,  the  way  of  Balaam: 
that  is,  the  way  of  avarice,  the  seeking  of  earthly  good 
and  making  our  relations  to  God  subordinate  to  what 
we  can  get  from  them  in  the  way  of  advantage  to  our- 
selves ;  and  then,  last  of  all,  there  is  the  way  of  Korah, 
the  way  of  pride  and  rebellion,  which  are  immediately 
followed  by  the  downfall  of  destruction.  And  now, 
after  having  thus  set  before  his  readers  the  punishment 
of  those  who  are  rebellious  and  the  character  of  those 
thus  treated,  he  comes  to  what  we  may  call  the  remedy ; 
and  in  the  seventeenth  verse  he  begins  to  tell  us  of 
what  we  are  to  do  with  regard  to  this  matter.  The 
first  thing  we  are  to  do  is  to  remember  the  word  of 
God  that  has  been  left  us  in  order  to  keep  us  from  this 
transgression  and  rebellion.  Then,  secondly,  we  are  to 
continue  in  love  and  faith  and  prayer.  Christian  graces 
and  virtues  which  are  antidotes  to  all  evil.  Thirdly, 
we  are  to  bring  back  those  who  have  gone  astray,  treat- 
ing them  in  different  ways  according  to  their  peculiar 


THE    EPISTLE    OF    JUDE  7^77 

necessities.  Some  of  them  are  so  involved  in  iniquity 
that,  in  order  to  save  them,  we  must  run  some  risk  our- 
selves. We  must  pluck  them  like  brands  from  the 
burning,  even  at  the  risk  of  our  own  burning;  others 
are  to  be  treated  more  gently  and  so  brought  back  to 
Christ. 

All  this  is  an  inculcation  of  faithful  watch-care  and 
discipline  on  the  part  of  the  Christian  church.  The 
Epistle  is  not  speaking  of  those  who  are  outwardly 
ungodly,  but  rather  of  those  who  have  already  pro- 
fessed the  religion  of  Christ,  and  are  in  danger  of 
being  led  astray  by  false  teachers,  to  the  harm  of  the 
Christian  church  and  the  ruin  of  their  own  souls.  Last 
of  all,  there  comes  the  magnificent  exhortation  and 
doxology  with  which  the  Epistle  closes.  It  is  one  of 
the  noblest  specimens  of  eloquence  and  solemn  gran- 
deur in  the  whole  book  of  God. 

There  are  one  or  two  things  in  this  Epistle  of  Jude, 
in  addition  to  those  which  I  have  mentioned,  which 
challenge  attention  at  the  very  outset,  and  which  have 
constituted  an  obstacle  to  the  reception  of  the  book  as 
authentic  and  inspired.  There  is  an  apparent  quota- 
tion from  an  Apocryphal  writing,  the  book  of  Enoch. 
In  the  early  Jewish  times  a  circle  of  tradition  gathered 
itself  around  the  name  of  Enoch,  the  patriarch  who 
walked  with  God,  and  was  not,  because  God  took  him. 
Enoch  came  to  be  regarded  not  only  as  a  representative 
of  Old  Testament  piety,  but  as  a  representative  also  of 
Old  Testament  science.  It  was  said  that  Enoch  was  an 
astronomer,  and  that  he  taught  the  movements  of  the 
heavenly  bodies  to  the  men  of  his  time.  It  was  said 
that  he  preached  not  only  to  man,  but  also  to  angels. 


37^  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

There  comes  down  to  us  from  remote  antiquity  a 
book  which  purports  to  be  the  book  of  Enoch.  Those 
who  have  investigated  it  most  fully,  and  who  know 
most  about  it,  describe  it  as  a  delirious  dream.  I  have 
tried  to  read  it.  I  doubt  whether  any  one  of  you  could 
read  it  through.  It  is  a  rhapsody  without  beginning, 
middle,  or  end;  it  is  a  series  of  reflections  or  medita- 
tions upon  Old  Testament  truths  by  a  mind  which  has 
in  it  all  the  instincts  of  speculation,  but  which  is  bound 
down  by  very  few  ties  to  solid  fact.  In  it  there  are  a 
few  traces  of  truth,  a  few  sagacious  conjectures  with 
regard  to  the  meaning  of  Old  Testament  Scripture; 
but  the  most  of  it  is  vague,  transcendental,  and  worth- 
less dreaming  with  regard  to  Old  Testament  characters 
and  God's  method  of  dealing  with  the  world. 

Did  Jude  actually  quote  from  that  Apocryphal  book? 
If  Jude  did  quote  from  it,  does  he  sanction  that  Apocry- 
phal writing  ?  Could  he  have  quoted  from  a  book  that 
was  not  the  word  of  God  and  thereby  have  given  to  it 
his  sanction  ?  Was  not  this  a  mistake,  inconsistent  with 
the  real  inspiration  and  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
in  Jude's  writing?  These  questions  presented  them- 
selves very  early  to  the  Christian  Fathers,  and  led 
some  of  them  to  throw  out  the  book  of  Jude  from  its 
place  in  the  canon. 

Two  or  three  things  may  be  said  in  regard  to  this. 
In  the  first  place,  we  do  not  certainly  know  that  this 
book  of  Enoch  was  in  existence  when  Jude,  the  writer 
of  the  Epistle,  wrote.  In  fact,  one  of  the  most  learned 
of  the  modern  German  investigators,  one  who  I  think 
has  as  much  weight  of  argument  upon  his  side  as 
any  one  who  has  written  with  regard  to  this  matter, 


THE    EPISTLE    OF    JUDE  379 

declares  that  this  book  of  Enoch  was  not  written  until 
about  132  after  Christ,  long  after  Jude's  time.  Jude, 
therefore,  does  not  quote  from  the  book  of  Enoch  at 
all.  Jude  is  quoting  a  tradition  which  had  come  down 
through  many  successive  mouths  from  very  early 
times;  this  tradition  was  a  true  tradition;  and,  in  quo- 
ting it,  the  Holy  Spirit  vouches  for  its  truth.  That  may 
be  the  proper  explanation.  Jude  may  be  quoting, 
under  the  direction  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  a  tradition 
which  had  come  down  from  early  times,  and  to  which 
he  gives  the  sanction  of  inspiration. 

The  words  quoted  begin  with  this  sentence :  *'  The 
Lord  comes  with  ten  thousands  of  his  saints  to  execute 
judgment  upon  the  imgodly."  The  whole  quotation 
gives  us  nothing  new.  It  is  only  what  in  substance  is 
vouched  for  in  other  parts  of  the  New  Testament  and 
of  the  Old  Testament  as  well;  so  that  we  cannot  say, 
even  if  Jude  quoted  from  the  book  of  Enoch,  that  he 
has  taken  from  that  book  of  Enoch  anything  which  was 
false  or  even  anything  which  had  not  been  revealed  be- 
fore. He  may  have  quoted  it  just  as  Paul  quoted  from 
Epimenides,  Aratus,  and  Menander,  the  Greek  poets. 
Paul  mentioned  Jannes  and  Jambres.  Where  did  Paul 
get  them?  Not  from  the  Old  Testament,  but  from 
some  floating  tradition.  But  by  so  quoting  the  floating 
Jewish  tradition,  he  gives  the  sanction  of  inspiration 
to  the  truth  of  that  tradition  to  just  that  extent.  So,  if 
Jude  quoted  from  a  book  of  Enoch  that  existed  before 
his  time,  he  only  took  from  that  book  of  Enoch  the 
germ  of  truth  that  it  contained  and  gave  the  sanction 
of  Inspiration  to  that.  So,  from  whatever  point  of 
view  we  regard  it,  I  do  not  think  we  are  warranted  in 


380  THE    BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

maintaining  that  Jude  gives  his  sanction  to  an  Apocry- 
phal book.  He  may  give  his  sanction  to  some  statement 
in  that  Apocryphal  book  if  that  book  existed  at  his 
time ;  but  the  most  probable  conclusion  is  that  the  book 
did  not  exist  at  his  time,  but  was  written  after  his  time, 
and  that  he  quotes  simply  a  floating  oral  tradition  and 
gives  to  that  oral  tradition  the  sanction  of  inspiration. 

In  this  reserve  which  Jude  shows  in  his  quotation 
we  see  the  guidance  of  inspiration.  There  are  a  thou- 
sand statements  in  the  book  of  Enoch  which,  if  Jude 
had  quoted  them  and  given  his  sanction  to  them,  would 
have  given  us  almost  conclusive  proof  that  his  Epistle 
was  not  canonical,  and  that  the  Holy  Spirit  had  not 
indited  it ;  but  Jude  takes  nothing  that  is  false,  nothing 
that  is  not  vouched  for  substantially  by  other  portions 
of  the  Scripture.  He  is  prevented  from  taking  material 
that  is  not  suited  to  his  purpose.  He  is  prevented 
from  taking  anything  that  would  cast  suspicion  upon 
his  general  narrative. 

A  final  objection  to  this  Epistle  is  its  tone  of  con- 
tinuous invective.  The  second  chapter  of  Peter's 
Second  Epistle  is  the  nearest  parallel  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  we  have  seen  reason  to  believe  that  here 
Peter  copied  from  Jude.  Jesus'  own  denunciation  of 
the  Pharisees  before  his  death  may  have  served  as  a 
model  both  for  Jude  and  for  Peter.  We  must  remem- 
ber that  God  denounces  sin,  and  that  he  commands  his 
ministers,  under  some  circumstances,  to  denounce  it. 
Jude's  fearful  arraignment  of  wilful  and  persistent 
iniquity  is  no  objection  to  its  inspiration,  but  rather  a 
proof.  It  is  a  solemn,  scorching,  withering  representa- 
tion of  sin,  and  of  God's  just  judgment  against  it.    If 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   JUDE  381 

we  consider  the  various  sins  that  Jude  reprobates,  we 
shall  see  that  this  Epistle  is  not  without  its  value  to- 
day. There  is  the  same  unbelief,  the  same  pride,  the 
same  sensuality,  the  same  avarice,  the  same  insubordi- 
nation, the  same  disregard  of  authority  to-day  as  in 
the  times  when  Jude  wrote;  and  these  scathing  de- 
nunciations and  threatenings  are  needed  to-day  as 
warnings  to  watch  and  to  repent. 

How  beautiful  it  is  that,  in  connection  with  these 
denunciations,  there  comes  in  the  most  sublime  dox- 
ology  that  is  to  be  found  in  the  whole  New  Testa- 
ment! Can  there  be  anything  more  solemn,  more 
glorious  than  those  words  with  which  Jude  closes? 
"  Now  unto  him  that  is  able  to  keep  you  from  falling, 
and  to  present  you  faultless  before  the  presence  of  his 
glory  with  exceeding  joy,  to  the  only  wise  God  our 
Saviour,  be  glory,  majesty,  dominion,  and  power 
through  Jesus  Christ  forever  and  ever.  Amen."  It  is 
like  Jesus'  "  Woe  unto  thee,  Chorazin !  Woe  unto 
thee,  Bethsalda !  "  followed  immediately  by  his  "  Come 
unto  me,  all  ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I 
will  give  you  rest." 

Jude's  sublime  utterance  of  praise  is  called  forth  by 
the  judgments  of  God.  There  is  a  refuge  from  sin 
and  death  in  God  our  Saviour.  But  God  also  judges 
and  punishes  iniquity,  and  his  holiness  is  a  matter  of 
praise  to  the  saints  as  well  as  his  love.  He  will  not 
look  with  favor  upon  iniquity.  Just  and  true  are  thy 
ways,  O  thou  King  of  saints!  That  seems  to  be  the 
spirit  of  the  Epistle  of  Jude. 


THE  BOOK  OF  REVELATION 

The  last  book  of  the  New  Testament  has  been  wisely 
assigned  its  place  at  the  close  of  our  Bible.  It  is  a 
large  and  comprehensive  view  of  the  conditions  of  the 
church  and  the  course  of  history.  It  brings  to  our 
minds  by  anticipation  the  completion  of  God's  work  in 
humanity  at  large,  the  expansion  of  that  germ  which 
was  once  for  all  planted  in  the  earth  when,  in  the 
person  of  Jesus  Christ,  salvation  was  embodied  and 
a  new  humanity  created  over  which  sin  and  death  had 
no  more  dominion  forever.  In  the  study  of  this  book 
our  thoughts  can  rise  from  the  beginning  of  the  proc- 
ess to  the  end  of  the  process,  can  pass  from  the  begin- 
ning of  the  conflict  to  the  end  of  the  conflict,  in  the 
glory  of  the  children  of  God  and  the  gathering  together 
of  all  the  sons  of  God  into  one  holy  and  blissful  com- 
munity in  the  presence  of  Christ,  their  Lord.  These 
are  only  preliminary  remarks,  but  they  intimate  to 
some  extent  the  purpose  and  value  of  this  book  which 
we  are  considering. 

The  book  of  Revelation,  or  the  Apocalypse,  as  it  is 
so  often  called,  is  the  revelation  made  to  John  the  apos- 
tle ;  for  all  attempts  to  show  that  any  other  person  than 
John  was  the  author  are  futile  in  the  extreme.  Many 
of  those  who  deny  John's  authorship  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  and  even  of  the  Epistles,  are  perfectly  ready 
to  concede  that  the  Apocalypse  is  the  work  of  John,  and 
to  hold  that  it  has  all  the  marks  of  a  Johannine  author- 
382 


THE   BOOK   OF  REVELATION  383 

ship.  It  must,  however,  have  been  written  at  a  differ- 
ent time  from  the  Gospel  and  the  Epistles,  because 
there  are  very  marked  differences  between  it  and  those 
other  works  of  the  apostle.  The  Apocalypse  was  by  far 
the  earliest  writing  of  the  apostle  John,  and  although 
it  now  constitutes  the  last  book  of  the  New  Testament, 
it  was  by  no  means  the  last  book  that  was  written.  A 
very  considerable  interval  came  between  the  writing 
of  the  Apocalypse  and  the  writing  of  the  Gospel  and 
of  the  Epistles.  The  Apocalypse  was  probably  written 
before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  perhaps  in  the 
year  68 ;  it  was  written  by  the  apostle  John,  in  Patmos, 
where  he  had  been  exiled  during  the  reign  of  Nero  and 
in  the  very  last  portion  of  Nero's  reign ;  it  was  written 
under  a  persecution  which  had  its  greatest  violence  at 
Rome,  but  the  farthest  circles  of  whose  waves  had 
reached  out  as  far  as  Asia  Minor  to  Ephesus,  where 
John  was  then  in  charge  of  the  churches  which  Paul 
had  left  to  his  supervision  at  his  martyrdom. 

John  had  remained  in  Jerusalem  until  the  death  of 
the  apostles  Peter  and  Paul  had  rendered  it  necessary 
that  some  one  of  apostolic  authority  should  take  charge 
of  the  great  and  influential  churches  that  were  located 
in  the  western  part  of  Asia.  You  remember  that  our 
Lord,  at  his  death,  left  his  mother  in  the  charge  of 
John.  Tradition  relates  that  he  not  only  took  her  to 
his  own  home,  but  that  he  remained  in  Jerusalem,  car- 
ing for  her  as  the  representative  of  our  Lord,  until 
Mary's  death ;  and  this  death  did  not  occur  until  some 
thirty  years  after  the  death  of  our  Lord.  Then,  in 
prospect  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  know- 
ing that  the  city  of  the  Old  Testament  was  soon  to  be 


384  THE    BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

obliterated  from  the  face  of  the  earth,  John  made  his 
way  to  Asia  Minor,  took  up  his  residence  in  Ephesus, 
and  began  to  take  charge  of  the  churches  in  that  region. 

Soon  after  this  there  sprang  up  the  persecution 
under  Nero.  John  was  banished  to  Patmos,  and  there, 
on  a  certain  Sabbath  day,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  opened 
to  him  the  future,  and  prepared  him  to  communicate 
great  truths  with  regard  to  God's  dispensation  to  the 
churches  of  Asia,  of  which  he  was  the  superintendent. 

The  early  origin  of  the  Apocalypse  accounts  for 
some  of  the  main  difficulties  with  regard  to  the  genu- 
ineness of  either  the  Apocalypse  or  the  Gospel.  We  find 
that  the  Apocalypse  is  written  in  a  style  that,  in  some 
respects,  is  different  from  the  style  of  the  Gospel  and 
of  the  Epistles.  The  main  differences  might  be  char- 
acterized in  this  way :  The  Gospel  and  the  Epistles  are 
in  simple  and  flowing  Greek.  They  are  not  broken,  or 
rugged  in  style.  There  is  a  spirit  of  sympathy  and  of 
love  in  them,  which  you  do  not  find  so  evidently  pres- 
ent in  the  Apocalypse.  In  addition  to  this,  you  find 
some  striking  peculiarities  of  Greek  construction  in  the 
Apocalypse,  which  are  totally  absent  in  the  Gospel 
and  in  the  Epistles.  There  are  lapses  of  grammar. 
The  Greek  preposition  which  should  govern  the  geni- 
tive is  used  occasionally  with  the  nominative  instead. 
Any  student  of  Greek  will  recognize  the  strangeness  of 
this  peculiarity,  and  there  are  certain  other  things  of 
a  similar  sort  which  I  need  not  mention.  I  am  inclined 
to  explain  this  by  saying  that,  during  his  early  life,  the 
apostle  John  had  his  dwelling-place  in  Jerusalem,  and 
was  accustomed  mainly  to  the  use  of  the  Aramaic  lan- 
guage.   In  other  words,  Greek  was  not  in  constant  use 


THE    BOOK    OF  REVELATION  385 

and,  therefore,  when  he  goes  to  the  churches  of  Asia 
Minor  and  begins  to  use  Greek  continually,  it  is  with  a 
less  perfect  familiarity  than  that  which  he  attains 
afterward;  and  these  lapses  of  grammar,  and  these 
peculiarities  of  style,  are  due  to  the  fact  that  he  had 
not  worked  into  the  Greek  language  as  he  afterward 
did.  Thirty  years  afterward,  when  he  had  become 
an  old  man  and  Greek  had  become  to  him,  as  it  were, 
his  mother  tongue,  he  uses  it  with  perfect  fluency,  and 
not  only  with  fluency,  but  with  very  remarkable  beauty 
and  smoothness  and  eloquence. 

This  is  probably  one  of  the  reasons  why  the  style 
of  the  Apocalypse  differs  from  the  style  of  the  Gospel. 
But  there  is  another  reason :  When  John  wrote  the 
Apocalypse  he  was  by  no  means  so  old  as  he  was  when 
he  wrote  the  Gospel  and  the  Epistles.  It  is  true  he 
was  not  young.  You  cannot  call  a  man  of  fifty  a 
young  man.  Yet  a  man  of  fifty  still  retains  the  fresh- 
ness and  fervor  of  his  youthful  style ;  and  as  you  read 
the  Apocalypse,  I  am  very  sure  you  will  recognize  some 
of  that  fire  and  vivacity,  some  of  that  intensity  and 
energy  which  is  indicated  in  the  epithet  "  Boanerges," 
or  ''  Son  of  Thunder,"  which  our  Lord  conferred  upon 
him.  I  suppose  there  are  more  thunderings  and  light- 
nings in  the  Apocalypse  than  in  any  other  book  of  the 
Bible ;  and  it  seems  very  fitting  that  Boanerges,  the  Son 
of  Thunder,  John  the  apostle,  should  have  been  the 
author  of  it. 

As  time  went  on  and  the  outward  difficulties  of  the 

church  were  less,  as  the  season  of  conflict  gave  place 

to  a  season  of  calm,  as  youth  was  succeeded  by  age,  it 

seems  only  natural  that  John  the  apostle  should  have 

z 


386  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

become  softened.  In  the  Gospel  and  the  Epistles  you 
seem  to  hear  again  and  again  repeated  the  words  which 
tradition  ascribes  to  John  in  his  old  age,  "  Little  chil- 
dren, love  one  another."  Love  became  more  and  more 
the  dominant  key  of  his  life ;  the  Gospel  and  the  Epis- 
tles represent  this  softened  nature,  this  effect  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  upon  him,  this  maturity  of  Christian 
character.  I  do  not  say  that  the  fiery  element,  the  in- 
tense hatred  of  wrong  is  absent  from  the  Gospel  and 
from  the  Epistles.  You  find  it  there  still,  and  yet  it  is 
toned  down,  as  you  do  not  find  it  toned  down  in  the 
Apocalypse. 

That  the  Apocalypse  was  written  before  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem  I  think  is  very  plain  from  some 
things  in  the  Apocalypse  itself,  namely,  the  fact  that 
the  Jews  are  spoken  of  there  as  an  existing  hostile 
power,  as  they  are  not  in  the  Gospel  and  in  the  Epistles. 
You  remember  that,  toward  the  close  of  Paul's  life,  but 
during  Paul's  active  ministry,  Judaizing  teachers  were 
his  most  active,  persistent,  and  malignant  enemies; 
and  the  tendency  to  turn  the  church  of  Christ  into  an 
old-fashioned  Jewish  synagogue  was  the  evil  tendency 
of  the  day.  The  Jews  were  the  persistent  and  malig- 
nant opposers  of  Christianity.  In  the  Apocalypse  you 
find  the  recognition  of  that  present  enmity  and  hatred, 
as  you  do  not  find  it  in  the  Gospel  and  in  the  Epistles. 
In  the  Gospel  and  In  the  Epistles  John  refers  to  the 
Jews  as  enemies  of  Christ,  It  Is  true,  but  It  is  perfectly 
evident  that  their  power  for  evil  has  long  since  passed 
away. 

In  the  Apocalypse,  when  the  apostle  Is  describing 
those  two  witnesses  that  were  slain  and  that  lay  dead 


THE    BOOK    OF  REVELATION  387 

for  a  time,  he  represents  them  as  lying  in  the  streets 
of  the  city  in  which  our  Lord  was  crucified.  If  Jeru- 
salem at  that  time  had  been  destroyed  and  blotted  out 
from  the  face  of  the  earth,  it  is  hardly  possible  that 
John  would  have  spoken  of  it  as  if  it  were  still  exist- 
ing, as  if  the  streets  were  there,  and  as  if  this  scene 
which  rises  before  him  could  yet  be  conceived  of  as 
taking  place  just  as  he  describes  it.  That  mystical 
number,  the  number  666,  which  is  given  by  the  author 
of  the  book  of  Revelation  as  a  sort  of  key  to  the 
present  application  of  his  prophecy,  can  be  interpreted 
most  easily  and  simply,  I  think,  as  an  allusion  to  the 
reigning  emperor ;  namely,  the  Emperor  Nero.  If  you 
will  take  each  letter  of  the  words  neron  kaisar,  ac- 
cording to  its  numerical  value  in  Hebrew,  you  will 
find  that  these  letters  make  up  the  precise  number  666 
that  is  recorded;  and  when  John  says  that  five  kings 
have  already  passed  away  and  have  had  their  day,  it 
is  most  natural  that  these  five  kings  should  refer  to 
the  five  who  had  reigned  at  Rome:  namely,  Caesar, 
Augustus,  Tiberius,  Caligula,  and  Claudius.  Then  he 
names  the  sixth  as  the  one  that  now  is,  and  that  sixth 
one  is  Nero.  Then,  to  confirm  these  conclusions,  he 
speaks  of  another  that  follows  who  is  to  continue  but 
for  a  little  space ;  and  Galba,  who  followed  Nero,  had 
his  place  upon  the  throne,  as  we  know  historically,  for 
only  seven  months ;  so  that  the  prophecy  seems  to  have 
more  light  thrown  upon  it  than  if  we  regard  it  as 
written  in  the  time  of  Domitian,  as  some  have  thought, 
some  thirty  years  afterward. 

It  has  been  argued,  in  reply,  that  we  do  not  give 
time  for  the  development,  in  the  churches  of  Asia,  of 


388  THE   BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

the  peculiar  tendencies  which  the  apostle  John  is  rep- 
robating in  the  Apocalypse.  Well,  I  say,  evil  some- 
times grows  very  rapidly ;  the  apostle  Paul  warned  the 
Ephesian  elders,  even  in  his  day,  against  these  evil 
tendencies ;  declaring  that,  ''  of  themselves  even,  some 
would  rise  and  would  lead  away  disciples  after  them  " ; 
and  it  is  not  improbable  that,  in  a  very  few  years 
after,  these  tendencies  may  have  become  so  developed 
as  to  call  for  John's  warnings  and  reprobations.  You 
remember,  in  the  case  of  the  Galatians,  how  soon  they 
turned  from  the  faith.  Evil,  I  repeat,  sometimes  grows 
very  rapidly;  and,  as  we  find  these  very  tendencies 
recognized  by  the  apostle  Paul,  it  is  nothing  at  all  im- 
probable that,  after  Paul  had  been  taken  away  and 
Peter  had  suffered  martyrdom,  these  tendencies  should 
have  very  speedily  required  reprehension  and  rebuke 
such  as  we  find  given  to  them  in  the  book  of  Revelation. 
The  times  in  which  the  book  of  Revelation  was  writ- 
ten need  to  be  taken  into  account,  in  order  that  we  may 
get  a  proper  apprehension  of  the  object  of  it.  Remem- 
ber that  the  Jewish  nation  had  reached  its  climax  of 
hostility  to  God  and  his  truth,  its  climax  of  inward 
moral  corruption  and  rottenness.  At  the  time  when 
this  Apocalypse  was  written  the  Jewish  nation  was 
simply  ripe  for  destruction.  It  had  turned  against 
Christ,  and  it  had  turned  against  God.  The  high- 
priesthood  was  openly  sold  in  the  market  for  money; 
high  priest  after  high  priest  obtained  his  office  by 
bribery;  and,  having  obtained  his  office,  signalized  his 
holding  of  it  by  the  most  shameful  wickedness  of  every 
kind.  The  persecution  of  Christians  was  a  common 
thing.    Christians  came  at  last  to  be  excluded  from  the 


THE    BOOK    OF  REVELATION  389 

courts  of  the  temple,  and  the  Jews  became  enemies  of 
all  that  was  good.  All  idea  that  they  were  holy  peo- 
ple, made  for  the  service  of  God,  seemed  to  pass  from 
their  mind;  they  became  an  apostate  church,  that  re- 
mained only  to  call  down  upon  it  the  judgments  of  God. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Roman  Empire  was  just  now 
in  a  condition  equally  corrupt,  and  equally  fit  for  divine 
retribution.  The  Romans  for  centuries  had,  by  war 
and  conquest,  enslaved  the  world  and  carried  tens  of 
thousands  of  captives  to  Italy,  there  to  be  "  hewers  of 
wood  and  drawers  of  water  " ;  so  that  the  whole  fabric 
of  the  Roman  commonwealth  rested  upon  a  vast  basis 
of  human  slavery,  the  atrociousness  and  monstrosity 
of  which  passes  belief.  The  emperors  became  so  in- 
flated with  pride  of  power  that  they  set  themselves  up 
in  the  place  of  God  himself;  they  were  objects  of 
w^orship  to  their  subjects;  altars  were  set  up,  upon 
which  sacrifices  were  offered  to  them  as  gods,  in  every 
great  city  of  the  Roman  Empire. 

And  Nero  was  upon  the  throne  at  this  time.  Nero 
was  a  sort  of  concentrated  essence  of  everything  that 
is  depraved  and  base  in  human  history.  He  murdered 
his  mother;  he  murdered  his  brothers;  he  murdered  his 
wives.  His  history  was  stained  by  every  lust  and 
every  crime  in  the  catalogue;  and  now  he  began  the 
persecution  of  Christians.  He  set  fire  to  Rome,  and, 
finding  that  public  reprobation  followed  the  act,  he 
laid  the  blame  of  it  upon  the  Christians,  wound  multi- 
tudes of  them  with  linen  bandages,  loaded  them  with 
wax,  and  set  them  up  In  his  garden  at  night  as  torches 
to  burn.  In  order  that  his  great  public  gatherings  might 
be  graced  by  the  spectacle.     That  was  Nero — one  of 


390  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

the  most  cold-blooded  and  horrible  examples  of  crime 
that  has  ever  defaced  the  history  of  the  world — and 
in  Nero  we  have  the  beginning  of  a  long  line  of  per- 
secutions of  the  Christian  church. 

John  writes  at  the  beginning  of  this  tremendous 
conflict  between  heathen  power  on  the  one  hand  and 
Christian  faith  on  the  other,  and  just  upon  the  verge 
of  that  tremendous  visitation  of  God  by  which  Jeru- 
salem was  swept  away  from  the  face  of  the  earth.  In 
view  of  these  calamities  that  were  to  sweep  away  the 
Jewish  temple  and  the  old  order  of  worship,  and  in 
view  of  the  various  persecutions  and  troubles  that 
might  come  upon  them  as  individuals  and  as  churches, 
Christians  needed  to  be  strengthened  with  the  thought 
that  God  was  in  the  heavens,  that  the  Lord  reigned, 
that  he  saw  the  end  from  the  beginning,  that  the  same 
hands  that  were  nailed  to  the  cross  held  now  the  reins 
of  power,  and  that  all  things  would  work  together 
for  good  to  them  that  love  God.  To  confirm  the 
faith  of  the  people  of  God  in  view  of  a  visitation  of 
Providence,  such  probably  as  has  never  been  seen  in 
the  history  of  the  world,  and  to  make  them  sure  that 
God  would  give  victory  to  his  saints  at  last,  this  was 
the  great  end  for  which  the  Apocalypse  was  written. 

With  regard  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Apocalypse, 
there  is  great  diversity  of  opinion.  There  have  been 
hundreds  of  interpreters,  and  not  many  of  them  agree. 
There  are,  first  of  all,  the  Praeterists,  or  those  who 
believe  that  everything  in  the  Apocalypse  had  taken 
place,  or  was  to  take  place  in  a  very  few  years  after 
the  death  of  the  apostles;  there  are,  secondly,  the 
Futurists,  or  those  who  hold  that  none  has  yet  taken 


THE    BOOK    OF  REVELATION  39 1 

place,  but  that  all  are  to  take  place  far-off  in  the  future ; 
and  then,  thirdly,  there  are  the  Continuists,  or  those 
who  hold  that  the  Apocalypse  is  a  continuous  historical 
narrative,  an  unfolding  of  the  history  of  the  church  of 
God  from  the  beginning  to  the  end. 

Let  me  give  you  what  I  think  to  be  the  key  to  it 
all.  The  key  to  it  all  is  found  in  the  eschatological, 
apocalyptic  discourse  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  himself 
just  before  his  death,  the  discourse  in  which  he  refers 
to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  but  in  which  his  ac- 
count of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  passes  into  an 
account  of  the  end  of  the  world.  Prophecy  is  destitute 
of  perspective.  It  does  not  take  account  of  now  and 
then,  but  presents  before  us  a  series  of  events  of  which 
the  one  passes  into  the  other,  with  no  clear  dividing 
line  between  this  and  that.  You  have  seen  the  views  of 
a  stereopticon,  and  you  know  how,  as  you  are  looking 
upon  one  view,  another  seems  to  be  appearing ;  the  first 
merges  into  the  second;  the  first  has  gone,  and  the 
second  is  here ;  but  you  can  never  tell  the  precise  point 
where  the  one  ceases  and  the  other  begins.  Just  so, 
as  our  Lord  is  seated  upon  the  Mount  of  Olives  oppo- 
site Jerusalem,  there  passes  before  him,  like  a  moving 
panorama,  the  terrible  scenes  that  were  to  be  witnessed 
only  a  few  years  after  his  death,  in  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem.  He  sees  mothers  that  are  massacring  and 
devouring  their  own  children.  He  sees  hundreds  of 
thousands  put  to  the  sword.  All  these  terrible  scenes 
are  passing  before  him,  and  he  depicts  them ;  but,  be- 
hold, as  he  depicts  this  divine  judginent  so  soon  to 
be  witnessed,  the  panorama  becomes  transparent,  the 
present  merges  into  the  future,  and,  before  you  know 


392  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

it,  he  is  describing  the  judgment  of  the  great  day;  the 
Lord  is  bringing  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  before 
him  and  separating  them,  as  sheep  from  the  goats.  No 
one  can  tell  where  the  description  of  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  ends,  and  where  the  description  of  the  end 
of  the  world  begins. 

This  eschatological,  apocalyptic  discourse  of  Jesus 
Christ  furnishes  the  key  by  which  we  are  to  interpret 
the  book  of  Revelation.  As  all  the  Epistles  of  Paul 
may  be  called  only  an  inspired  commentary  upon 
Christ's  last  discourse  to  his  disciples  in  the  Gospel  ac- 
cording to  John,  just  so  the  whole  book  of  Revelation 
may  be  called  nothing  but  an  inspired  commentary  upon 
Christ's  apocalyptic  discourse  before  he  suffered.  No- 
tice two  or  three  things  with  regard  to  Christ's  dis- 
course. The  first  is  this,  that  it  is  vain  to  say  that  our 
Lord  Jesus  was  describing  there  simply  things  that 
were  taking  place  in  his  generation.  It  is  perfectly 
plain  that,  although  he  begins  with  describing  things 
that  are  taking  place  in  his  generation,  he  does  not  end 
there.  He  does  not  end  with  anything  short  of  the 
end  of  the  world ;  and  so  I  think  that  our  Lord's  dis- 
course furnishes  a  reason  why  we  should  completely 
give  up  the  Prseterist  interpretation  of  the  book  of 
Revelation,  which  regards  it  as  only  a  description  of 
things  that  took  place  in  the  day  of  the  apostles.  It 
doubtless  refers  to  some  such  things,  but  that  is  not 
the  end  of  it.    There  is  much  more  than  that. 

Again,  if  we  take  our  Lord's  discourse  for  a  guide, 
we  must  equally  throw  out  the  view  that  the  book  of 
Revelation  all  belongs  to  the  future.  Our  Lord's  dis- 
course certainly  spoke  of  things  that  were  then  present 


THE    BOOK    OF  REVELATION  393 

or  were  going  to  be  within  a  few  years  after  his  death. 
We  cannot  accept  the  interpretation  of  the  book  which 
makes  it  all  refer  to  things  that  have  none  of  them  yet 
happened;  but  then,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  equally 
true  that  the  continuous  or  historical  method  has  very 
much  against  it,  when  we  look  at  what  Christ  has  said 
in  his  discourse  about  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and 
the  end  of  the  world. 

Our  Lord  does  not  attempt  to  fill  up  all  the  inter- 
vals between  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  end 
of  the  world.  I  infer  that  those  who  think  we  have,  in 
the  book  of  Revelation,  a  complete  map  of  all  the 
events  that  were  to  take  place  from  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  to  the  end  of  the  world  must  be  mistaken. 
Prophecy  passes  over  vast  intervals,  and  sometimes 
gives  no  account  of  the  incidents  that  are  in  them.  It 
may  be,  therefore,  that  large  intervals  are  passed  over 
in  the  book  of  Revelation,  and  that  no  account  is  taken 
of  them. 

I  think  I  hear  you  say :  ''  If  you  throw  out  all  the 
interpretations,  pray,  what  interpretations  have  you 
left?  "  Well,  I  say  I  have  them  all  left;  I  mean  that 
I  have  all  the  good  in  them  left;  and  the  interpreta- 
tion which  I  would  propose  is  substantially  this:  We 
have  in  the  book  of  Revelation,  as  we  have  in  the  dis- 
course of  Christ,  an  exhibition  of  principles  rather  than 
of  events,  of  principles  illustrated  here  and  there  by 
events,  but  without  intention  to  give  us  a  continuous 
map  of  the  whole.  My  general  idea  of  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  book  of  Revelation,  then,  regards  it  as  an 
exhibition  of  principles. 

As  our  Lord  speaks  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 


394  THE    BOOKS    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

and  the  visitation  of  punishment  upon  his  opposers,  he 
elucidates  principles  of  God's  retributory  judgment, 
which  apply  to  the  end  of  the  world  as  well;  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem  and  the  end  of  the  world  are 
both  mentioned,  simply  as  illustrating  those  principles. 
So  we  have  great  principles  laid  down  in  the  book  of 
Revelation,  together  with  isolated  illustrations  of  them. 

Let  us  now  take  up  the  book  of  Revelation  a  little 
more  in  detail.  We  have,  first  of  all,  the  prologue,  in 
which  the  greatness  and  glory  of  Christ  are  set  before 
us.  The  foundation  of  our  hope  is  the  fact  that  our 
Lord  reigns,  that  he  is  a  risen  Saviour,  that  he  has  the 
keys  of  hell  and  of  death,  that  he  supervises  his 
churches,  that  he  walks  in  the  midst  of  the  golden  can- 
dlesticks. This  truth  serves  as  the  foundation  of  all 
that  comes  after,  whether  of  doctrine  or  of  duty. 

There  follows  a  description  of  the  church  which 
Christ  is  to  supervise,  with  all  its  infirmities,  with  all 
its  weaknesses,  with  all  its  dangers,  yet  with  the  life 
of  God  in  it.  It  is,  notwithstanding,  a  sevenfold  lamp 
that  is  set  up  to  burn  here  in  the  world. 

After  this  we  have  a  sort  of  summary,  in  which 
heaven  is  opened;  there  is  a  book  before  the  throne; 
and  that  book  or  roll  is  sealed;  no  one  can  open  the 
seal,  until  at  last  the  Lion  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  prevails 
to  open  the  seal,  and  all  heaven  rejoices. 

I  call  this  the  summary  of  everything  that  is  to 
come.  The  meaning  of  it  is  just  this :  The  book  is  the 
book  of  God's  decrees.  That  book  no  one  can  open; 
that  is,  no  one  can  understand,  except  the  Saviour  him- 
self, the  Lamb  of  God,  who  executes  these  decrees 
in  human  history.     He  can  understand  and  explain, 


THE    BOOK    OF  REVELATION 


395 


because  he  has  himself  formed  the  decree  and  he  him- 
self will  execute  it.  So,  one  after  another,  he  opens  the 
seals;  that  is,  he  unrolls  the  book,  breaking  one  seal 
after  another  as  he  unrolls  it;  and  as  he  unrolls  it  he 
reads  or  explains  it  by  the  revelation  that  he  gives  to 
the  apostle. 

You  remember  how  the  revelations  that  follow  suc- 
ceed one  another.  First,  the  seven  seals,  then  the 
seven  trumpets,  and  finally  the  seven  vials,  or  bowls. 
Do  these  represent  successive  periods  of  human  history, 
or  are  they  simply  different  representations  of  the  same 
events  ? 

I  am  inclined  to  this  latter  view,  and  for  the  reason 
which  I  intimated  only  a  few  moments  ago.  We  have 
no  sufficient  reason  for  believing  that,  in  the  book  of 
Revelation  we  have  a  continuous  account  of  all  the 
main  events  between  the  time  of  the  apostles  and  the 
end  of  the  world. 

I  am  rather  inclined  to  believe  that  we  have  here 
representations  of  the  great  future  which  are  parallel 
to  one  another.  In  other  words,  the  seven  trumpets 
are  parallel,  are  the  same  things  represented  in  a  differ- 
ent way,  with  the  seven  seals ;  and  the  seven  vials  are 
the  same  things,  represented  in  a  still  different  way, 
as  the  seven  trumpets  and  seven  seals. 

The  twentieth  chapter,  which  intervenes,  is  a  won- 
der in  the  book.  In  this  chapter  the  first  resurrection 
is  distinguished  from  the  second  resurrection,  as  spirit- 
ual resurrection  is  distinguished  from  literal  resurrec- 
tion. In  other  words,  in  the  first  resurrection  we  have 
described  a  mighty  movement  of  the  Spirit  of  God  In 
his  people  all  over  the  world,  a  movement  so  mighty 


396  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

that  it  would  seem  as  if  the  prophets  of  old  had  risen 
again  to  testify  for  their  Lord,  while,  at  the  same  time 
the  opposing  spirit  of  enmity  and  unbelief  has  itself 
a  day  of  rest.  In  other  words,  the  millennium  that  is 
spoken  of  is  a  millennium  that  precedes,  not  follows, 
the  second  coming  of  Christ.  My  view  is  the  post- 
millennial  view,  rather  than  the  premillennial  view. 
Christ  comes  at  the  end  of  the  millennium.  He  comes 
literally  at  the  end  of  the  millennium  instead  of  at  its 
beginning,  because  the  second  coming  of  Christ  is  coin- 
cident with,  and  cannot  be  separated  from,  the  resur- 
rection and  the  general  judgment.  He  is  to  come  the 
second  time  to  judge  the  earth.  He  is  to  come  the 
second  time  unto  salvation.  No  interval  of  a  thousand 
years  is  intimated  between  the  coming  of  Christ  on  the 
one  hand  and  the  resurrection  of  the  wicked  and  the 
general  judgment  on  the  other.  The  first  resurrection 
is  spiritual,  and  now  is.  The  saints  who  have  been 
raised  from  the  death  of  trespasses  and  sin  shall  have 
their  last  conflict  with  the  powers  of  darkness,  but 
the  conflict  shall  end  in  victory.  The  second  and  literal 
resurrection  will  follow,  when  Christ  comes  in  the 
clouds  of  heaven  to  judge  the  earth.  The  book  of 
Revelation  ends  with  those  wonderful  chapters  which 
depict  the  final  rest  and  glory  of  the  people  of  God. 

Let  us  be  thankful  for  such  a  book  as  this.  Our 
hearts  need  it.  Human  beings  in  the  midst  of  persecu- 
tion and  trial  and  trouble,  which  are  at  times  unspeak- 
able, need  some  assurance  that  there  is  to  be  an  end  of 
these  things.  Otherwise  human  nature  would  be  for- 
ever longing,  but  never  blest.  Our  nature  would  never 
reach  the  end  for  which  it  aspires.    God  has  not  left  us 


THE   BOOK   OF  REVELATION  397 

to  live  in  this  world  forever  dissatisfied;  he  therefore 
reveals  to  us,  in  the  midst  of  the  conflicts  of  the  world, 
that  these  conflicts  are  to  have  an  end,  and  that  the 
Lord  is  to  come,  for  the  rewarding  of  his  saints  and 
for  the  punishment  of  the  ungodly. 

In  the  twenty-first  and  twenty-second  chapters  of 
the  book  of  Revelation  we  have  heaven  coming  down 
to  earth.  We  have  the  complete  manifestation  of  God. 
We  have  the  final  perfection  of  man,  not  only  individu- 
ally but  collectively.  God  does  not  save  men  simply 
for  themselves.  He  does  not  take  me  and  make  me  a 
member  of  his  kingdom,  as  the  last  end  he  has  in  view. 
No,  the  last  end  that  he  has  in  view  is  to  gather  to- 
gether a  great  company  of  redeemed  and  holy  souls, 
in  which,  in  manifold  ways,  he  shall  show  forth  his 
glory.  He  will  show  the  power  of  his  grace  in  multi- 
tudes of  individuals,  bound  together  in  an  intimacy  of 
communion,  in  a  closeness  of  intercourse,  in  a  rapture 
of  worship  and  fellowship,  of  which  all  we  see  in  this 
world  is  only  the  foretaste  and  symbol.  We  need  such 
a  revelation  as  this  to  lift  us  up  in  our  times  of  dark- 
ness and  trial.  Thank  God,  the  need  is  wonderfully 
supplied;  it  is  supplied  by  the  revelation  of  Jesus 
Christ;  for  it  is  Christ  alone  around  whom  all  these 
glories  circle  and  center. 

John's  Apocalypse  and  John's  Gospel  agree  together 
in  their  representations  of  the  "  Word  of  God."  The 
phrase  "  Word  of  God,"  as  applied  to  Christ,  is  pecu- 
liar to  the  Apocalypse  and  to  the  Gospel  and  the  First 
Epistle  of  John.  You  find  it  nowhere  else  in  the  New 
Testament,  but  you  do  find  it  here.  Christ  is  God  re- 
vealed.    Christ  is  God  brought  down  to  our  human 


398  THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

comprehension,  and  engaged  in  the  work  of  our  salva- 
tion. In  John's  vision  of  the  holy  city,  New  Jeru- 
salem, ''  the  lamp  thereof  is  the  Lamb."  Not  "  the 
light,"  as  it  was  in  our  old  version,  but  "  the  lamp." 
What  is  the  difference  between  a  light  and  a  lamp? 
Why,  light  is  something  universally  diffused,  some- 
thing indefinite.  You  see  hy  it,  but  you  cannot  see  it. 
A  lamp  is  a  light-bearer.  A  lamp  is  the  narrowing 
down,  the  focusing  of  light,  so  that  in  the  lamp  the 
light  becomes  definite  and  visible.  Have  you  ever 
thought  you  were  going  to  see  God,  the  Father,  in  the 
New  Jerusalem,  as  separate  from  Christ,  the  Son?  I 
do  not  think  you  will.  "  He  that  hath  seen  me  hath 
seen  the  Father,"  says  Christ.  In  Christ  we  have  nar- 
rowed down  and  concentrated  and  made  definite  and 
visible  the  Godhead  itself.  This  representation  of 
John's  Apocalypse  is  just  the  same  as  the  representa- 
tion of  John's  Gospel.  "  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any 
time,"  and  no  man  ever  will;  but  "the  only  begotten 
Son,  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hath  de- 
clared him  ";  and  he  zvill  declare  him  to  his  saints  for- 
ever; so  that  the  Lamb  shall  be  the  Lamp  of  the 
heavenly  city ;  and  in  Christ  we  shall  see  the  perfected 
glory  of  God.  May  all  who  read  these  lectures  "  enter 
in  by  the  gates  into  the  city  "  from  which  there  is  no 
more  going  out  forever;  and  in  the  presence  of  God 
and  of  the  Lamb,  may  we  see  directly  and  perfectly 
what  we  have  seen  here  only  in  an  indirect  and  imper- 
fect way.  Then  we  shall  see  as  we  are  seen,  and  know 
as  we  are  known ;  and,  seeing  Christ  our  Saviour  as  he 
is,  we  shall  at  last  be  like  him. 


Date  Due 

i 

f 

^ 

,.4. 

'  -  ^ 

^•tiiWirf'^P 

•  r/iUifi>Fi 

^ 

